Contrtbutions to Cburation 



l#5»MllKlt!lP'<^g#l;ll*i 





%-# 



Class TJjZi^ 
BookJVL2 



Copyright }J^.. 



COEXRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



The Measurement of Certain Elements 
of Hand Sewing 

By Katharine Murdoch, Ph.D. 



Teachers College, Columbia University 
Contributions to Education, No. 103 



Published by 

tE^cacterg College, Columbia ^nifaersfUp 

New York City 
1919 



iYionugi'<ipn 



Copyright, 1919, by Katharine Murdoch 



r<1 



\^ 



MAR 18 1920 



©aA58Ci539 



CONTENTS 



I. The Problem 



11. The Data 



Subjects 
Material 
Judges 

III. The Scale * . . 13 

IV. Faults in Sewing 32 

The Analysis of Faults 

The Measurement and Significance of Various Faults 

V. The Reliability of Measurements of Sewing ... 90 

Reliability in Relation to the Kind of Stitch 

Reliability in Relation to Synthetic vs. Analytic Judgments 

Reliability in Relation to the Number of Samples 

Reliability in Relation to the Character of the Judges 

Reliability of Judgment in Relation to the Distribution and to 

the Kind of Products Judged 
Reliability in Relation to the Use of the Scale 

VI. A Summary of Results 108 

Appendix I. A Test of Transfer from Sewing to "Neatness" 

and to "Esthetic Appreciation" 115 

Appendix II. The Scale 120 and Insert 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Without the very kind cooperation of many persons this research 
could not possibly have been carried through. The author is under 
a great debt of gratitude to those who assisted her in procuring the 
sewing samples used. Miss K. Antes, of Port Chester, N. Y. ; 
Mr. H. H. Stewart, of Mount Vernon, N. Y.; Miss Hinman, of the 
Carnegie Institute of Technology; Miss Vogelsang, of Kingsley 
House, Pittsburgh. Pa.; Miss Fawcett, of East Orange, N.J.; Super- 
intendent D. C. Bliss, of Montclair, N. J.; Mrs. Bounty, of Stam- 
ford, Conn.; Miss Spohr, of Teachers College; Miss Sallie Fisk 
and Miss Luella Smock are among those who assisted in this way. 

To all the busy persons who made judgments upon the samplers, 
and to the many who gave helpful advice and assistance of various 
sorts, the author is indeed grateful. Among these latter she particu- 
larly feels indebted to Mrs. Consaulus, of the Washington Irving 
High School; Professor Cooley, of Teachers College; Miss Ethelwyn 
Miller, of the Iowa State College; Dr. Kate Gordon, of the Carnegie 
Institute of Technology; Miss Mary IngersoU, of Cornell Univer- 
sity, and Miss Meda C. Lynn. 

Dr. William A. McCall and Dr. Truman Lee Kelley, of Teachers 
College, were very helpful in the giving of advice and suggestions 
concerning statistical matters. 

Above all, the author desires to express her sense of indebtedness 
to Dr. E. L. Thorndike, without whose suggestions, guidance, and 
inspiring influence, given at a time when he was under unusual 
strain, this work would never have been accomplished. 

K. M. 



SECTION I 
THE PROBLEM 

Hand sewing, with its predecessor in garment making, weaving 
upon the loom, is one of the oldest of the arts, and the teaching of 
it long antedates our schools. Penelope in her upper chamber, 
bidding "her women ply their tasks at the distaff and loom," was 
far from a pioneer in the teaching of woman's first art. A history 
of this teaching would form a large share of the total history of 
the education of women before the time of their formal instruction 
in schools, and runs parallel with this history from then on. The 
early records of Boston show that needlework was taught to girls 
by their regular teachers as early as 1798, when they were first 
admitted to the schools. Not until 1873, however, was a regular 
sewing teacher appointed. From that time the teaching of sewing 
as a specialized element of school instruction has gradually spread, 
thus somewhat preceding the more general movements of manual 
training and industrial arts education. 

In spite of its long history and wide use, sewing has received very 
little attention from the psychologist or from efficiency engineers or 
measurers of educational products. We still use phrases like the 
"good work" and "handsomest in work" by which Homer measured 
the lovely robe of Helen of Troy. A somewhat more objective 
system of measurement was introduced when, with the coming of 
school grades upon a percentage or letter basis in other subjects, 
came also the same system for grading the sewing work in a school. 
Both the adjective method and the school-grade method are still in 
vogue and await the coming of more objective measures. 

In a few of the western universities and agricultural schools there 
has been put in use rather recently score cards to measure sewing 
products. These cards indicate the maximum per cent that can 
be awarded for various parts of the work, and refer sometimes to 
the process of sewing as well as to the products — sometimes to 
the product alone. Below are two samples of such score cards •} 

* These score cards were devised by Miss Katherine Cranor, of the University of 
Nebraska. 



The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



SCORE CARD FOR UNDERWEAR 



II. 



Technique 

a. Cutting 

b. Fitting 

c. Workmanship 


45% 


III. 


Design 

a. Good spacing 

1. Hems 

2. Tucks 

3. Embroidery and 


15% 


Selection of material . . . 

a. QuaHty 

b. Suitability 

c. I. Garment 


20% 


IV. 


other trimmings 
b. Originality 

Neatness 

a. Clean 


15% 


2. Use 






b. Finishings 




d. Relation of trimming 






c. Well pressed 




to material of gar- 




V. 


Cost 


5% 


ment 
e. Hygiene — laundering 
qualities 






a. Value of money ex- 

pended 

b. Economy in trimming 





SCORE CARD FOR DRESSMAKING 



IV. 



I. Design 25% 

a. Line 

b. Color 

c. Suitability as to type 

and occasion 

d. Silhouette 

e. Originality and indi- 

viduality 

II. Selection of material . . . 15% 

a. Color 

b. Suitability as to use 

and age 

c. Trimming 

d. Durability 

HI. Technique 25% VI. 

a. Cutting 
h. Fitting 



V. 



c. Workmanship 

d. Pressing 

e. Neatness 

Hygiene 15% 

a. Cut and construction 

b. Material 

c. Cleaning qualities 

Cost 10% 

a. Value of money expended 

b. Standard of living 

c. Relationship of trim- 

ming to material 



Ethics . . . . 

a. Modesty 

b. Influence 



10% 



These score cards vary and depend for their usefulness upon the 
judgment of their makers as to what really is the relative impor- 
tance of each part in relation to the whole. 

There are few, if any, elementary school subjects to-day which 
have received as little serious study on the measurement side as has 
this ancient art of hand sewing. Because no means of scientific 
measurement for this subject is at hand, it has been impossible to 



The Problem 3 

draw any well-founded scientific conclusions as to many important 
questions of methods and results. 

The present study grew out of a desire upon the author's part to 
evaluate scientifically certain methods of teaching sewing. Only a 
very few of the questions which led to this research are here solved 
or, for that matter, even attacked. The author hopes, however, 
that besides answering a few of her original questions, this investi- 
gation will furnish a measuring instrument for certain parts of the 
whole subject of elementary sewing which will be freely used by 
others who may make investigations in this field and so free their 
effort for the attack upon more interesting problems than have been 
studied here. 

An almost indefinite number of these problems, all of them 
requiring some means of measurement for merit of the finished 
product of sewing, crowd to mind. I shall mention only a very 
few which will be quickly added to by every progressive teacher of 
sewing. 

There are, first, many problems of wide concern to educators in 
general, such as the amount of transfer which can be expected from 
the teaching of sewing to other fields, in ideals of workmanship, 
creative and aesthetic ability, etc. There are also general problems 
of method in the teaching of sewing itself, such as: (i) individual 
versus group instruction; (2) the amount of transfer to be expected 
frorfi knitting, card-sewing, and the like, to ability to sew on cloth; 
(3) the so-called "logical" method of starting with elementary tasks, 
such as stitches upon samplers versus the so-called "psychological" 
method of starting with some more complex task which makes a 
definite appeal to the child. More specific still are such important 
questions as: (i) What is the best order of teaching the different 
stitches used in hand sewing? (2) Does the early introduction of 
machine sewing interfere with the formation of right habits of hand 
work? (3) At what age is it most economical to commence instruc- 
tion in sewing? (4) What value has previous home teaching as an 
introduction to school work? (5) How should wrong habits, formed 
by such teaching, be broken by the school? 

Thorndike's four rules of common sense occur to one as suggesting 
many rather simple experiments which could be performed to test 
controversies concerning methods of teaching. 

His first rule, "Form habits, do not expect them to create them- 
selves," suggests that we determine whether or not it is better: (i) 



4 The Measurement of Certain Elements oj Hand Sewing 

to push the needle with the side rather than with the end of the 
thimble, (2) to move the material up and down with the left hand, 
holding the right still in gathering, (3) to hold the thread taut 
between the third and fourth fingers of the right hand rather than 
with the fifth finger. These and many other points upon which 
sewing teachers disagree suggest that we determine the usefulness 
of the habit formed in one way or the other, and henceforth teach 
in that way. 

Rule 2, "Beware of forming a habit which must be broken later," 
suggests balancing up present against later advantages. Consider, 
for example, such practices as (i) having the first work in sewing 
done with double thread, (2) drawing a line for the child to follow 
in her early attempt at running and backstitching, (3) having the 
work at first always started by the teacher. 

Rule 3, "Do not form two or more habits when one will do as 
well," suggests interesting experiments to discover whether one will 
"do as well" in the following and other cases: (i) Taking several 
stitches upon the needle at one time in running; (2) measuring and 
breaking the thread with one movement; (3) making knots with 
one hand only; (4) taking several stitches upon the needle at one 
time in overcasting. 

Rule 4, "Other things being equal, have a habit formed in the 
way in which it is to be used" again suggests testing out certain 
methods which would apply this rule, and sometimes finding out 
when the "other things are equal." We find that children often 
hem with the material held upside down, (i) Is hemming likely to 
be done in this way if it is used early upon a large garment, where 
the awkwardness of this manner of sewing shows itself? (2) Is 
damask hemming more likely to be put upon other kinds of material 
when it is taught only upon damask than when it is first used upon 
other materials? (3) When overcasting is first put upon articles 
whose edges are liable to the strains of actual wearing and launder- 
ing, is it so likely to be made in such a manner that the stitches are 
not deep enough for practical purposes? 

The brief suggestions made here in accordance with the four 
rules of habit formation are for the most part, as the reader sees, 
applicable to the evaluation of habits which would appear in simple 
stitch making. If the reader will take the trouble to apply them to 
the more complex situations in which drafting, cutting, and fitting 
together are concerned, it will be seen how suggestive these rules 



The Problem 5 

are, and how useful it would be to our everyday practice if many of 
them were actually tested out as they apply to the concrete sewing 
situations. 

Besides these problems of method and procedure in sewing in- 
struction, knowledge of norms of sewing ability is needed. We 
need to know how well children of different ages, school grades, and 
with various amounts of sewing instructions do sew. We need to 
decide also how well they should sew. This latter problem is one to 
be solved partly by others than educational psychologists. To some 
extent the answer, however, should depend upon a knowledge of 
the sewing ability of otherwise efficient and useful members of the 
adult woman population of which the school girls will one day form 
a part. If this ability is in general lower than that required by most 
of our schools for girls in the grades and high schools, it would be 
well, perhaps, to lower or revise our sewing requirements. This is 
precisely what Thorndike found in his study of merit in hand- 
writing, and he wisely suggests that as adult members of society 
are able to succeed with a smaller amount of merit in handwriting 
than that required of the school population, the latter requirement 
is probably excessive and the time spent by school children in per- 
fecting their ability along this line would far better be spent in 
learning to typewrite, an art which is quite rapidly replacing need 
for ability, beyond a certain point, in handwriting. Machine sewing 
is, in the same way, rapidly making unnecessary much of the ability 
for very fine work in hand sewing; and if school children are being 
required to do much better work in hand sewing than the normal 
performance for competent women, it is time that we realize the 
fact. Knowledge of this point can come about only through 
scientific measurement of sewing ability. 

These much-needed norms of the typical amount of sewing ability 
characteristic of various ages, school grades, and sewing trades, 
expressed in terms of the scale presented here or of some other 
scale, must, of course, in some way take account of one other 
variable, namely "speed." How quickly a girl sews obviously is often 
as important as, or more important than, how well she sews. The 
measurement of speed will not be discussed in this monograph, not 
because the matter is unimportant, but because the procedures are 
obvious. 

The questions of method and procedure which have been enumer- 
ated above have been, and still are, subject to debate among various 



6 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

members of the household arts profession. Deductions (probably 
often very well drawn) from other fields have been introduced as 
proofs of various beliefs, but no actual experimental evidence is 
furnished (so far as the author knows). Indeed, no actual experi- 
mental work which might prove or disprove any of these theories is 
likely to be made until some means of measuring the results of in- 
struction in sewing are at hand. This present study aims, among 
other things, to furnish the means of measuring some of the results of 
sewing instruction. The word "some" is used because it is recognized, 
first of all, that, as in other subjects, instruction in sewing aims at 
many other goals besides that which its specific title implies. Such 
aims as ideals of workmanship and the love of truth and honor, this 
research in no way helps one to measure. A section is included in 
the Appendix which may throw some light on the rather general 
aims of teaching "neatness" and "aesthetic appreciation," but, on the 
whole, the measurement here attempted is the measurement only 
of the specific aims of instruction in sewing. Even these are by no 
means all provided for. In fact, only a small part of elementary 
sewing is measured. This study still leaves us in need of instru- 
ments which will serve as measuring rods for the important abilities 
of cutting out, fitting together, planning and constructing various 
articles, as well as those which will measure the sewing on of but- 
tons, the making of buttonholes and other finishings, and stitches 
which are not included in this study. 

The author fully realizes that the contribution here made to the 
measurement of school sewing is small, indeed, when compared to 
the possibilities. However, when we consider, not the extent of the 
whole subject of school sewing, but the prevalence of the teaching 
and the need for the teaching of that part of elementary sewing for 
which a measure is provided by this research; when we take into 
account that most women do mending for themselves or others, 
that many women make some of their own or children's garments, 
and that approximately one out of every five or six girls ^ in 
our big cities enters some branch of the sewing trades, it seems 
to be desirable that even a meagre beginning be made in the scien- 
tific measurement of the school preparation for these life activ- 
ities. 

"^ This proportion was found to be true in Cleveland by the Survey Committee of 
the Cleveland Foundation in 1915. 



The Problem 7 

The specific tasks of this research are as follows : 

1. To make a scale by means of which merit in certain forms of 
hand sewing may be measured. 

2. To make an inventory and analysis of the faults found in 
children's sewing. 

3. To determine the relative importance of various faults and of 
various stitches as indicators of general merit in sewing. 

4. To determine the relative reliability of judgments concerning 
various faults and concerning various stitches. 

5. To determine (a) the reliability of one or more samples of a 
child's sewing in evaluating her real ability in that kind of sewing; 
to determine {h) the number of samples of various stitches which 
would be required in order to have various degrees of probability 
that a child's real ability to execute that particular stitch was 
measured. 

6. To determine the relative accuracy of competent persons, 
with varying degrees of knowledge about sewing and the teaching 
of sewing, as judges of sewing products. 

7. To test the value of our sewing scale as a means of attaining 
greater exactitude in the grading of sewing products. 



SECTION II 
THE DATA 

SUBJECTS 

The sewing of 1,212 individuals forms the material for this inves- 
tigation. Ninety-five of these subjects were women students of 
colleges of practical arts, eight being especially chosen because of 
their known ability in hand sewing; eleven were adult women, 
friends of the author, whom she supposed to be above the average 
in sewing ability; thirty-seven were feeble-minded or defective 
children (both boys and girls) who were in special classes for defec- 
tives or in an institution for the feeble-minded; the remaining 1,069 
subjects were girls ranging in age from nine to eighteen, and in 
school grade from the sixth to the twelfth. They represent fifteen 
different schools in six school systems, all in or near New York 
City. 

It will be seen that, in obtaining subjects, an attempt was made 
to select more than a chance number of extremely good and ex- 
tremely poor sewers. This is true to some extent not only of the 
adults, college students, and defective subjects, but also of the 
1,069 regular school children. The request was made, in fact, to 
those who supervised the making of the samplers that they should 
choose their very good and very poor sewers to take part, if there 
was to be any choice at all within the class. This request was not 
made in the case of the sixty-eight children out of the 1,069 who 
each made two sewing samplers instead of one. In this case, we 
may presumably expect to find a normal distribution of sewing 
ability. For the group, as a whole, we should not expect this to 
be true. The selection was purposely made with a view to obtaining 
a graded series of specimens of sewing varying from as nearly per- 
fect to as poor as it was within the author's power to obtain. Be- 
cause the selection was made in this way, it has been deemed 
unfeasible in this study to draw any conclusion as to the normal 
sewing ability for various ages, grades, amount of sewing instruction 
received, etc. 



The Data 9 

MATERIAL 

Each individual who took part in the experiment was given two 
pieces of longcloth. All pieces were of the same quality, six by 
three inches in size. To each teacher who supervised the making 
of these samplers was sent a model for the arrangement of stitches 
and the following directions: 

DIRECTIONS 

Material is 6 x 3 inches for easy handling, but only 3 inches of sewing, 
which is put l>^ inches from each end, is required, except in the case of the 
original basting which holds the two pieces together, and extends all the 
way across. 

1. Use red thread No. 60. 

2. Baste the two pieces together all the way across and do not pull out 
the bastings. 

3. Do three inches of backstitching to form the seam. 

4. Overcast the rough edges of the seam together for the three inches. 
Open the two pieces of the material and press back the seam so that the 
right side of the backstitch shows. Turn a quarter of an inch hem on the 
six-inch edge farthest from the backstitch and 

5. Baste for three inches. Do not remove bastings from finished work. 

6. Hem this for the three inches. 

7. Do three inches of running stitch on top piece. 

8. Do three inches of combination stitch on bottom piece. 

9. Have pupils write on slip of paper name, age, grade, and number of 
years or months they have had sewing instruction. Pin this paper securely 
to their samplers. 

N.B. The inclosed sample is in no way a model except for the arrange- 
ment of the stitches. Such things as knots, fastening of thread, manner of 
making combination stitch, etc., can be left to the individual. 

These directions were not followed in many cases. In about 150 
samplers several stitches were omitted or a half-backstitch was used 
in making the seams, and it was necessary to discard these, as it was 
feared they would introduce a variable feature which the judges 
would find hard to deal with. In some cases the directions to use 
red thread and to place the sewing one and a half inches from each 
end of the material were disregarded. These samplers were not 
discarded from the original judgments, but when some samplers 
were chosen for final placement, these doubtful ones were all 
omitted, so that the final scale contains only samplers in which the 
directions were closely followed. 



10 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

In the case, also, of the sixty-four samplers which were judged for 
faults, an effort was made (as far as was consistent with other prin- 
ciples of selection to be explained later) to include only those 
samplers in which the directions were accurately followed. In only 
a few cases was it necessary to do otherwise. 

In determining the reliability of estimates of sewing ability, based 
upon a limited number of samples, the work from one school was 
used. In this school each child made two samplers, but from 
among these 136 samplers only those 100 were used in which the 
directions were fully followed in both of the samplers made by 
each child. 

Many forms of sewing might have been chosen other than the 
one adopted. For many reasons a completed article, such as a 
small bag or doll's apron, would have made better material for this 
study. The reader may wonder why we should revert to the sewing 
sampler which, as a teaching device, has for some years been dis- 
carded in our better schools. The reason is partly one of expediency. 
It was difficult to obtain 1,280 specimens of sewing made according 
to certain directions. It would have been far more difficult, if not 
impossible, to have obtained as many uniform specimens if the 
requirement had been to make them according to more elaborate 
directions, or according to directions which would require the 
spending of a much longer period of time. 

Another justification for the use of a sewing sampler rather than 
a completed article is that it is more easily handled and probably 
appreciably better as a measuring device than any single specialized 
product would be. As a teaching device too great simplicity and 
formality are to be avoided. As a measuring device, provided they 
are elements of real situations, they are to be welcomed. This is 
not to gainsay the fact that other measuring instruments are also 
needed which will measure more complex abilities than can be 
reached by the simple scale; but it is to say that that which is 
measured (in this case, the making of certain stitches) is so done in 
a more accurate, neat, and concise manner. 

In this case, as has been said before, no attempt is made to mea- 
sure many of the complex abilities included in the making of any 
real article. W hat we do hope to measure is ability in the making 
of certain stitches, in the turning of the hem, and in the making of 
a simple seam (of a designated sort). The care of the sampler as a 



The Data 1 1 

whole as to cleanliness, mussiness, and trimmed edges ^ may be 
partly, though not very accurately, measured. The same may be 
said of the arrangement of the relative positions of the stitches.^ 
These things do not, by any means, constitute total merit in sewing. 
Very probably, and to an increasing degree, as machine sewing comes 
more and more to replace hand sewing, some or all of them may 
become of minor importance. They are, however, of enough impor- 
tance at the present to take the time and attention of hundreds of 
supervisors, thousands of teachers and millions of children in our 
country, on many days out of each week in the school year. Con- 
sequently, they are undoubtedly of enough importance to merit the 
existence of a scale which measures them alone, provided it does so in 
a concise and easy manner. 

For this particular arrangement and choice of stitches on the 
sampler the author's judgment was the criterion. They seemed to 
represent better than any other arrangement and choice which was 
thought of, important sewing elements which are usually taught 
near the beginning of a sewing course, and which could be made in 
a minimum of time. 

JUDGES 

Three hundred and forty-seven persons made judgments upon 
one or another feature of varying numbers of the sewing samplers. 
The majority of these judges were women, but about fifty men and 
one child (aged twelve) also acted as judges. With not more than 
five or six exceptions, these persons were college students or gradu- 
ates. Somewhat more than a random sampling of sewing teachers 
was included among the judges. The reader may wonder that a 
much larger proportion of sewing teachers was not included. The 
reason is threefold: (i) because of the difficulty in finding more 
sewing teachers who would make the judgments; (2) because what 
little data we have on the subject indicate that the judgment of 
sewing teachers is no more reliable than that of other intelligent 

1 The samplers with which we dealt, of course, changed in these particulars during 
the process of judging them. However, as they all had the same amount of handling, 
they presumably kept their original relative positions in these respects. 

2 To a large extent, this last matter of arrangement is prescribed by the directions, 
but not entirely. The directions, for example, say nothing about the placement of 
the running and combination stitches, from top to bottom of the piece upon which 
they were put. 



12 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

judges;^ (3) because it is possible that sewing teachers as a class 
may have a certain bias in favor of certain forms of sewing which 
would not be in agreement with otherwise competent judges in 
general. This may be an unreal danger, but those who have devised 
scales for handwriting, composition, drawing, etc., have taken pains 
to use the judgment of persons not all of whom were specialists in 
these subjects. The resulting scales have been found very useful 
by those who are professionally engaged in the teaching of these 
subjects, and it seems safe to follow the practice in question. 

' Part of this evidence is given in Section 5. Another slight bit of evidence is found 
in the fact that when the sum of the deviations from the average judgments for ten 
samples taken at random was compiled, in the case of all the judgments made upon 
129 samplers and upon 100 each of five stitches separately, the judge who was shown 
to be the best by having the least number of deviations was not a sewing teacher, nor 
had she ever studied sewing. 



SECTION III 
THE SCALE 

The history of the making of scales to measure educational 
products is one of rapid growth since 1910, when Thorndike issued 
his scale for measuring the quality of handwriting. It is not within 
the scope of this study to present either the history or the value of 
this movement. Several books have appeared within the last year 
dealing with educational measurements which are in large part a 
collection and discussion of such scales. To these and to the original 
scales which they describe the reader is referred for general knowl- 
edge of the subject.^ 

In the Appendix of this volume is a reproduction of the graded 
series of sewing samplers which form the scale under discussion here. 
The judgments to be described which form the basis of the scale- 
values were passed upon the original samplers. The reproductions 
given in the Appendix are, however, by many persons considered 
so comparable to the originals that it is thought that their use will 
give substantially the same results which would be obtained if the 
original samplers themselves could be used by everyone. It is, of 
course, to be regretted that cleanliness and smoothness of the 
material are not well measured by this scale. They would not be, 
however, could the original samplers themselves be used, these 
having all become somewhat soiled and mussed by the amount of 
handling they necessarily received during the process of judging 
them. 

There are three views of each sampler, all showing the stitches in 
their original size. One is a full view of one side of the sampler, and 
shows the way the stitches are arranged upon the original. The 
seam is here turned so that the right side of the backstitch shows. 
A second view gives the opposite side of the sampler, showing the 
reverse side of the hemming, running, and combination stitches. 
Before these photographs were made, the samplers were folded in 

1 Monroe, De Voss, and Kelley, Educational Tests and Measurements, 191 7; Chap- 
man and Rush, The Scientific Measurement of Classroom Products, 1917; Starch, Edu- 
cational Measurements, IQ16. 



14 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

such a way that the running and combination stitches were brought 
closer together, and the ends of the material beyond the sewing 
were cut away. The stitches themselves are all included and are 
exact reproductions of the original. The third view gives a full- 
length view of the reverse side of the seam. 

The fifteen samplers which constitute the finished scale are iden- 
tified by the letters A, B, C, etc. The final scale values for each 



sampler are as follows : 
A 


o 

1.8 

3-2 

4-3 

5-1 

. 6.1 

. 6.7 

. 7.8 


T 


B 


J 
K 


C 


D 


T 


E 


l\/[ 


F 


N 


G 


O 


H 





8.9 
10.4 

131 
14-3 
151 

16.4 



The scale should be used in the following manner: Any sample 
of sewing which is to be judged should be compared with the 
sampler in the scale which is most like it in general merit. It should 
be compared with several adjacent samplers until the judge is sure 
of its position. If it is exactly the same in general merit as some 
sampler in the scale, it should be given the number which is the 
score for that sampler. The score for each sampler is printed below 
it. If it falls between two samplers of the scale, it should be given a 
score between their values proportionate to the amount of its 
difference from each of them in merit. For instance, if an article 
to be judged has the merit of sampler L plus one-fourth the differ- 
ence between sampler L and sampler M, it should be given a 
score of 13.4. 

The essentials of any valid scale according to Thorndike are 
as follows: 

I. Objectivity. 



Consistency. 

Definiteness of the facts and their differences one from another. 

Comparability with the facts to be measured. 

Reference to a defined zero point. 



In making the present scale, the author sought to approximate 
these five ideals. 

I. "Objectivity" is attained by having reproducible photographs 
of specified sewing samplers stand for or represent certain identi- 



The Scale 15 

fiable positions in the scale so that it is possible for all persons to 
know what is meant by a sampler of a certain value. 

2. "Consistency" is obtained by having a series of photographic 
plates of samplers which contain various amounts of merit in the 
same stitches, upon the same material, and with very much the 
same arrangement. 

3. "Definiteness of the facts and their differences, one from an- 
other": the scale consists of reproductions of samplers, each one 
of which has a certain value, the samplers being arranged in 
order, starting with that one which has the lowest value. These 
values are in terms of units of amount. Each unit, which we may 
call K, represents that amount of merit which exists between the 
samplers when one is recognized as being of more value than the 
other by 75 per cent of competent judges and of less value by the 
other 25 per cent of the judges. To meet this requirement of defi- 
niteness of the facts as it has been met, the author has depended 
upon the cooperation of iii judges who spent in all about 130 
hours evaluating sewing samplers. 

That the ideal of perfect definiteness is not attained is seen by 
inspecting the P. E.'s for each assigned value of fourteen of the 
samplers of those twenty-two which formed the basis of the first 
assignment of values*. The average of these P. E.'s is .159. This is 
.01 of the total range covered by the scale from the poorest to the 
best sampler, an amount of unreliability which is large, indeed, 
when we compare it with the definiteness of the units of such scales 
as those for weight or length. But if we could compare this amount 
of average deviation of the placement of values for each unit with 
the deviations which would result and which always have resulted, 
save by some chance occurrence, when sewing is graded for merit 
by one individual without, or even with, the aid of any scale, we 
should find .01 of the distance of our scale to be so small by com- 
parison that we would regard it as almost negligible. The author 
does not mean by this that she is completely satisfied with the 
results. As time goes on and more and more judgments are avail- 
able, it is her aim to make more and more definite the value of 
each sampler .2 

*See page 28. 

- Any reader who will have the fifteen reproductions of the samplers which appear 
in the Appendix cut apart and arranged in an order of merit by competent persons who 
are ignorant of their proper order or values, and who make their ratings independently, 
and will send these judgments to the author, will hasten the fulfillment of this aim. 



1 6 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

Since the samplers themselves have not absolutely definite values, 
neither have the differences between them. Again, however, the 
variability of the judgments of individuals who may use the scale 
is sure to be of so much greater magnitude, that the usefulness of 
the scale is very little, if at all, impaired thereby. A greater draw- 
back in the case of the differences is that they are not equal. This 
makes a little more ability necessary to use the scale, makes it 
harder to judge samples in integral numbers, or half units, and pre- 
vents a certain pleasant rhythmical feeling of evenness. More 
samplers and more judges alone can remedy this deficiency. 

4. "Comparability with the facts to be measured." This principle 
of scale-making guided the author, as stated above, in selecting for 
the scale material samplers rather than finished articles because 
they seem to have more in common with all the various articles of 
sewing which they may be used to measure. A hem, a simple seam, 
and samples of running, backstitching (sometimes called stitching 
stitch), overcasting, basting, and combination stitches were chosen 
for the same purpose, because of the frequency of their appearance 
in the products whose measurement would require a sewing scale. 

"Comparability with the facts to be measured" suggests another 
issue in the technique of scale-making. Many criticisms have been 
cast upon former scales because in the eyes of the critics either they 
have not been comparable to the facts to be measured, or they have 
included too many diverse elements which might vary indepen- 
dently in merit. Thus many have said that a scale for the drawing 
of houses could not possibly be used to measure the merit of the 
drawing of a snow-ball fight, and that a scale for merit in hand- 
writing which included such diverse elements as slant of line and 
differences in spacing was useless. Results have proved these critics 
to be wrong. Such scales have been used, and to advantage. Yet, 
doubtless, other scales of a more comparable and analytical nature 
might have been even more exact in measuring the particular facts 
desired by these persons. The practical problem of making many 
scales of the necessary degree of comparability to the many different 
facts to be measured is a very extensive one. 

Actual accomplishment must always be a compromise between 
what is feasible and what is theoretically desirable. Nowhere is this 
more true than in the making and also in the using of scales. This 
latter point should especially be held in mind by the critic of the 
analytic type. Granted that the present scale would be improved 



The Scale 17 

if it were augmented by five more scales for each of the dififerent 
stitches, would the additional time required to judge an article of 
sewing by the use of five scales rather than one repay the busy 
teacher by giving her enough additional definiteness as to the merit 
of the article which she was judging? A partial answer to this 
question will appear in Section 5. Suffice it to say here that when 
allowance is made for the difference in time spent in judging one 
set of samplers as compared with that spent in judging five sets, it 
seems evident, according to results which are recorded later, that a 
sewing sampler containing several kinds of stitches, a seam, and a 
hem is in toto nearly enough comparable to another such sampler to 
make it expedient to use a measure for general merit in that form, 
rather than a combination of independent measures for each of the 
separate stitches. If the fact to be measured is not general merit, 
but merit in overcasting, then undoubtedly a scale containing only 
samples of overcasting would be of greater value. The author is 
now engaged in making scales for the five different stitches (basting 
is omitted) which are represented on her full sampler scale. She is 
making these, however, with the expectation that they will be used 
more often separately to measure the particular kind of stitch of 
which it is a sample, rather than in combination in evaluating a 
complete article for total merit. 

5. "Reference to a defined zero point" has been attained for the 
present scale by the following means : Eighty of the ill individuals 
upon the basis of whose judgments the scale was made, were asked 
to locate the zero point of merit; in other words, to tell which, if 
any sampler, represented zero values. Zero was arbitrarily defined 
as meaning the score to be given a sampler which could be recog- 
nized as an attempt to conform to the directions for the making of 
the sampler, but which had absolutely no merit as an example of 
the stitches indicated. In dealing with sampler A as a zero, the 
reader must keep in mind just what is here meant by the term. 
Thirty-eight judges of the eighty who were asked to locate zero 
said that sampler A represented just zero merit, defined as above. 
Twenty-one of the judges thought that sampler A was better than 
zero, and twenty-one that it was worse than zero. Accordingly, 
sampler A just represents zero, as defined above, according to the 
combined opinion of these eighty judges, and it has, therefore, been 
given that value. It is interesting to note that this sampler was 
made by an imbecile boy, untrained in sewing, who is particularly 



1 8 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

deficient in motor control and who suffers from serious eye trouble 
which often causes dizziness and nausea. 

The usefulness of a scale whose values do extend upward from a 
defined zero point is found whenever it is necessary to make quan- 
titative comparisons between the values of any two products which 
have been evaluated in terms of the scale. No one knows how 
much better the child who received 90 per cent as a school mark in 
sewing can sew than the one who receives 80 per cent; but in a 
very real sense it can be said that the child whose sewing has been 
rated upon this scale as 12.2, has produced a product with twice as 
much merit in the elements measured by the scale as is possessed 
by a specimen rated 6.1. The sense is, with certain limitations, the 
same as that in which it is said that four inches are twice two 
inches, the meaning being in both cases that the larger of the two 
contains twice as many units above zero. 



Two methods of making scales such as this are in use by educa- 
tional psychologists. They are based respectively upon the method 
of "right and wrong cases," and that of "mean gradations." The 
first makes use of the assumption that differences which are equally 
often noticed are equal; the second assumes that distances which 
appear equal to the average or median of many judges are equal. 
Each of these methods has points in its favor. The former has been 
chosen for the making of the present scale because it need not 
take account of the end error which must be reckoned with in 
making scales by the use of the second method. All the data 
necessary for assigning values according to the second method are 
in the possession of the author, who will be glad to give them to 
anyone who cares to compute the values in the other way.^ 

The following steps were followed in the making of this scale: 

1. Twelve hundred and eighty samplers were examined by the 
author and all those which were made in accordance with the direc- 
tions (or with only slight alterations) were retained. 

2. Of these samplers, 854 were graded by twelve judges; 300 of 
them (which were received late) by only six judges. 

The directions given to the judges were as follows: The samplers 
were to be placed in piles in such a way that the successive piles 

' The general logic and presuppositions of these methods are assumed here and in 
what follows. 



The Scale 



19 



should contain samplers varying from one another in general merit 
by equal amounts. In all there were to be ten piles above zero 
merit (zero being defined as stated earlier in this section). If, in 



Table I. Distribution of 854 samplers as to general merit according to two 
grotips, A and B, of six judges each 

Amounts of merit' are in terms of six times the average value 
assigned the samplers by each group 



Amounts 
of Merit 


Frequencies 

for 

Group A 


Frequencies 

for 

Group B 


Amounts 
of Merit 


Frequencies 

for 

Group A 


Frequencies 

for 

Group B 


6 


2 


2 


37 


32 


38 


7 


I 


3 


38 


19 


31 


8 


2 


2 


39 


39 


26 


9 


2 


4 


40 


30 


25 


10 


3 


3 


41 


21 


21 


II 


2 


2 


42 


36 


34 


12 


3 


2 


43 


43 


32 


13 


3 


3 


44 


19 


31 


14 


3 


4 


45 


23 


19 


15 


I 


5 


46 


24 


15 


16 


5 


4 


47 


23 


20 


17 


II 


3 


48 


18 


25 


18 


9 


5 


49 


16 


10 


19 


4 


7 


50 


8 


9 


20 


9 


8 


51 


5 


6 


21 


18 


12 


52 


5 


10 


22 


23 


20 


53 


5 


5 


23 


14 


21 


54 


9 


4 


24 


15 


31 


55 


3 


5 


25 


17 


16 


56 


2 


I 


26 


17 


22 


57 


7 


3 


27 


35 


22 


58 


3 


8 


28 


25 


29 


59 


2 


I 


29 


29 


27 


60 


2 


I 


30 


27 


29 


61 


I 


' 3 


31 


31 


25 


62 


I 




32 


32 


24 


63 


4 


I 


33 


26 


33 


64 






34 


19 


40 


65 




I 


35 


28 


32 


66 


3 


2 


36 


34 


27 


67 


I 





a of dist. of A group = 10.51. 
a of dist. of B group = 10.34. 



20 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

their opinion, some samplers were of just zero merit, these were to 
be put in an eleventh pile. If any samplers were of less than zero 
merit, they were to be put in the twelfth pile. 

When it was found that none of the 300 samplers which were 
judged by only six judges fell within two piles of the top or bottom 
of the scale, according to the average opinion of the six judges, it 
was decided to use these no longer, as it was felt that the steps 
toward the center of the scale, which they did represent, were al- 
ready sufificiently taken care of by the 854 samplers which had been 
more adequately placed. No further reference, therefore, will be 
made to these 300 samplers. 

The twelve judges were now grouped according to the order of 
their judging, alternate judges forming Groups A and B. Table I 
shows the distribution of the 854 samplers as to general merit, ac- 
cording to the average opinion of each one of these groups. As the 
Table stands, the values are expressed as six times the average 
position assigned the samplers by each group. This expression is 
used to avoid the labor of dividing the sum of the six judg- 
ments all through by six, and also to avoid the use of fractions or 
decimals. Table I also states the o- ^ of each distribution. The 
correlation between the average judgments of Groups A and B was 
derived from the following form of the Pearson method for measur- 
ing correlation : 

n (a X^+a- 3/^)— 2(x — v)^ 
j,= : 

2n cr X a y 

in which 2(x — y) is the sum of the squares of the difTerences be- 
tween each pair of corresponding measures; tr x is the a of the dis- 
tribution of the first set of six judges; and cr y the tr of the distribu- 
tion of the other set of six judges. This correlation of .93 ± .003 
serves as a measure of the reliability of the judgments. 

3. The value of each sampler was determined according to the 
combined average of all twelve judges. On the basis of these aver- 
age judgments, the number of samplers to be retained for further 
judgments was now reduced to 129. These 129 samplers formed a 
rectilinear distribution, being chosen as representatives of equal 
intervals all along the scale from best to poorest, and differing from 
one another by amounts of one-twelfth of the differences represented 

* a will be used throughout to mean the Mean Square Deviation of a variable fact. 



The Scale 21 

by any two adjacent piles into which the samplers had originally 
been sorted. This selection could not be rigidly adhered to near the 
two extremes of the scale. Occasionally there were gaps not rep- 
resented by any sampler. To make up partly for these omissions 
five extra samplers from nearby steps were included in the 129. 

4. These 129 samplers were arranged in groups according to 
merit by twenty-eight additional judges, in the same manner as 
that in which the 854 samplers had been arranged by twelve judges. 

5. On the basis of the combined judgment of twenty-four of 
these last judges and of the twelve original judges, twenty-two 
samplers were chosen, the differences between successive average 
values of which were (with one exception, an extra sampler having 
been introduced due to a clerical error) approximately equal, except 
that the differences between the average values of two successive 
samplers at either end of the scale were smaller than differences in 
the middle of the scale and that one extra extremely good sampler 
was included. The reason for the choice of samplers near the ends 
of the scale which had smaller differences in average value than had 
those near the center was that the average value of the former 
probably gives a false estimate of their real value. The reason for 
this is that (according to the directions) no judge was able to place 
any sampler higher than pile i or lower than pile 12 (not even so 
low, unless he deemed it of less than zero merit). Therefore, the 
judgments of the extremely good and extremely poor samplers have 
distribution curves which are largely skewed toward the low and 
high ends of the scale respectively and which would probably be 
smoothed into more nearly normal surfaces of frequency if different 
conditions of judging had made this possible. The extra sampler 
mentioned above was included because it was hoped that by having 
a large number of extremely good samplers, one, at least, would be 
found which would fall approximately upon an even step of the 
scale. 

All these preliminary steps were gone through in order to assure 
some degree of likelihood that the final values to be assigned to the 
samplers which should constitute the finished scale would be 
at approximately equal intervals from one another. The values so 
far arrived at were not used at all in the final scale except in a 
manner to be indicated later. 

6. The twenty-two samplers whose selection has been described 
were next judged by fifty new judges. The placement this time 



22 



The Measurement of Certam Elements of Hand Sewing 



was in twenty- two piles; in other words, the samplers were ar- 
ranged in an order of merit. Forty of the fifty judges were asked 
to locate "zero" by indicating which, if any, sampler was of just 
zero merit; or, if none was, whether they considered zero as falling 

Table II. Per cent of fifty judges making 'better judgments upon a set of 
twenty-two samplers 

Sampler 544 is, in direct comparison with sampler 977, judged 
to be 'better' by forty-two per cent of fifty judges 



977 


s 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


652 


s 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


976 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


900 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


381 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


322 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


653 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


709 


is 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


321 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


497 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


671 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


511 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


473 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


678 


IS 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


418 


^S 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


448 


is 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


440 


is 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


489 


is 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


528 


is 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


532 


is 


similarly 


udged 


better' 


530 


is 


similarly 


udged 


better' 



than 652 by 88 per cent o 
than 976 by 76 per cent o 
than 900 by 56 per cent o 
than 381 by 64 per cent o 
than 322 by 68 per cent o 
than 653 by 68 per cent o 
than 709 by 66 per cent o 
than 321 by 66 per cent o 
than 497 by 78 per cent o 
than 671 by 58 per cent o 
than 511 by 80 per cent o 
than 473 by 60 per cent o 
than 678 by 72 per cent o 
than 418 by 56 per cent o 
than 448 by 56 per cent o 
than 440 by 82 per cent o 
than 489 by 60 per cent o 
than 528 by 80 per cent o 
than 532 by 84 per cent o 
than 530 by 84 per cent o 
than o by 36 per cent o 



50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 
50 



udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 
udges 



between two samplers or as falling below the worst sampler. The 
judgments of these forty and of the first forty judges were used 
together in the manner described earlier to determine the fact that 
"zero" is exactly the amount of merit possessed by sampler A. The 
arbitrary definition of "zero" for our purposes is also described 
earlier. 

7. As stated above, it had been decided that the final assignment 
of values for this scale was to depend upon the assumption that 



The Scale 23 

differences which are equally often noticed are equal. It was 
necessary, therefore, at this point to arrange the data in such a 
way that a comparison between samplers of successive degrees of 
merit could be made in terms of the proportion of judges who made 
"better" judgments as to the relative merit of the two samplers con- 
stituting each successive pair. By a "better" judgment is meant 
one in favor of a sampler which had more merit according to the 
average opinion of the first thirty-six judges. Table II gives this 
arrangement of the data for the fifty judges in reference to twenty- 
two samplers. The original identification numbers are used to 
designate the various samplers in this table and in those which 
follow. 

8. Although the forty judges who had judged 129 or more sam- 
plers probably had not made direct comparison of each of the 
twenty-two samplers with the next one below it, in the order given 
in Table II, it was possible to use their judgments in the same way 
as had been done for the fifty judges, with the exception that some 
provision had to be made for the "equal" judgments. The fifty 
judges, having placed the twenty-two samplers in an order of merit, 
of course had made no "equal" judgments; but the forty judges, 
having placed the samplers in only from ten to twelve piles, had 
often, it was found, placed adjacent samplers of our list as given in 
Table II, in the same pile. Table III gives the data and our manner 
of dealing with the equal judgments. Two plausible means of 
handling these were thought of, and are indicated here. One was 
to divide the "equal" judgments equally between the "better" and 
"worse" judgments. The assumption here is that since A and B 
were put in the same pile by the judge in question, he was as likely 
to judge A> B as A<B. Another assumption, however, might lead 
to the conclusion that if the individuals who made "equal" judgments 
had been forced to make a decision between each of our adjacent 
pairs, they would have made judgments of "better" and "worse" in 
the same proportion as those judgments actually were made by those 
of the forty judges who did not make "equal" judgments. Since 
each of these assumptions has a certain degree of plausibility, it 
was decided to make a compromise midway between the two, as 
shown in the last column of Table III, and to use the amounts 
given there as the correct measures of the percentage of forty judges 
who made "better" judgments in respect to the first of each succes- 
sive pair of the numbered samplers. 



24 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

9. Twenty-five more judgments were next made upon the 
twenty-two samplers, by having them again placed in an order of 
merit. Twenty-one of these new judgments were made by addi- 
tional judges, four by individuals who were among the first forty 
judges. Table IV shows the percentage of these twenty- five who 

Table III. The percentage of 'better', 'worse' and 'equal' judgments made by 
forty judges upon a set of twenty-two samplers, and the manner of dividing 
the 'equaV judgments properly between 'better' and 'worse' 

The table should be read as follows (each sampler being compared with the one below 

it): Sampler 544 was judged 'better' than sampler 977 by 7.5 per cent of 40 

judges. It was judged 'worse' than 977 by 7.5 per cent. It was judged 

'equal' to it by 85 per cent. When these 'equals' were divided equally 

between the 'better' and 'worse' judgments, it was judged better 

by 50 per cent of judges, etc. 



Samplers 
each com- 
pared to the 
one below it 


Per cent 
of 'better' 
judgments 


Per cent 
of 'worse 
judgments 


Per cent 
of 'equal' 
judgments 


Per cent 
of 'better' 
judgments 
found when 
the 'equal' 
judgments 
are divided 
equally be- 
tween 'better' 
and 'worse' 


Per cent 
of 'better' 
judgments 
found when 
the 'equal' 
judgments 
are divided 
proportion- 
ally between 
the 'better' 
and 'worse' 


Per cent 
of 'better' 
judgments 
found when 
the 'equal' 
judgments 
are divided as 
a compromise 
between 'equ- 
ally' and 'pro- 
portionally' 


544 


7-5 


7-5 


85.0 


50.0 


50.0 


50.00 


977 


27-5 


2.5 


70.0 


62.5 


91.6 


77-05 


652 


35-0 


5-0 


60.0 


65.0 


87-5 


76.25 


976 


48.7 


15-3 


36.0 


66.7 


76.0 


71-35 


900 


53-8 


12.8. 


33-4 


70.5 


80.7 


75.60 


381 


50.0 


30.0 


20.0 


60.0 


62.5 


61.25 


322 


44-7 


237 


31.6 


60.5 


65-3 


62.90 


653 


40.5 


18.9 


40.5 


60.8 


68.1 


64-45 


709 


42.1 


18.4 


39-5 


61.8 


69-5 


65-65 


321 


54-0 


21.6 


24.4 


66.2 


71.4 


68.80 


497 


44.4 


25.0 


30.6 


59-7 


64.0 


61.85 


671 


50.0 


23-7 


16.3 


63.1 


67.8 


65-45 


511 


36.8 


31-6 


31-6 


52.6 


51-8 


52.2 


473 


56.4 


7-7 


35-9 


74-3 


88.0 


81.15 


678 


48.7 


20.5 


30.8 


64.1 


70.3 


67.20 


418 


55-3 


21.0 


23-7 


67.1 


72.4 


69-75 


448 


48.7 


154 


35-9 


66.7 


76.0 


71-35 


440 


40.0 


17-5 


42-5 


61.2 


69.6 


65.40 


489 


50.0 


17-5 


32.5 


66.2 


74.1 


70.15 


528 


45-0 


12.5 


42.5 


66.2 


78.2 


72.20 


532 


42-5 




57-5 


71.2 


lOO.O 


85.60 


530 


30.0 


12.5 


57-5 


58.7 


70.6 


64.65 



The Scale 



25 



made "better" judgments in favor of the first of each successive pair 
of samplers. 

10. It was now necessary, in order that the final scale appear as 
a succession of samplers varying from one to another in merit by 
defined units of amount, that the measures we had of relative 
position be transmuted into measures in units of amount by means 
of the percentage of agreement of our different judges in respect to 

Table IV. Per cent of twenty-five judges making 'better' judgments upon a 
set of twenty-two samplers 

Each sampler is compared with the one below it. A 'better' judgment means 
that the first of the pair was considered better 



Samplers 


Per Cent of 


Samplers 


Per Cent of 


Compared 


'better' Judgments 


Compared 


'better' Judgments 


544 


40 


671 


64 


977 


88 


511 


60 


652 


44 


473 


84 


976 


88 


678 


24 


900 


36 


418 


80 


381 


72 


448 


64 


322 


64 


440 


88 


653 


60 


489 


80 


709 


56 


528 


88 


321 


60 


532 


96 


497 


72 


530 





the relative positions. Since it was desirable, for reasons to be 
mentioned later, to keep separate for the present the three sets of 
judgments which we had obtained, these transmutations into units 
of amount were made separately for each of the three groups of 
fifty, forty, and twenty-five judges. 

The theory underlying the transmutation is that differences 
which are equally often noticed are equal; that differences which 
are less often noticed than others are less than they; and that 
differences which are more often noticed are greater. Thus we say, 
judging by the results obtained from the fifty judges, that the 
superiority of sampler 977 over 652, which was recognized by 
88 per cent of them, is greater than the superiority of sampler 652 
over sampler 976, which superiority was recognized by only 76 
per cent of these judges. The exact amount of each of these differ- 



26 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

ences has been worked out (on the assumption that the distribution 
of the variations of individual judges' opinions of a sampler is that 
of the normal probability surface) in terms of a unit, which we 
may call K, which equals the difference between any two members 

Table V. The differences of twenty-two samplers between each successive pair, 
according to different groups of judges, as determined from a knowledge of the 
per cent, of judges who judged each sampler as ^better' than the one whose 
identification number lies below it 

K = a difference in merit, in favor of the first of each successive pair, which is noted 
by seventy-five per cent of the judges concerned 



Samplers 


K, as Determined 


K, as Determined 


K. as Determined 


Compared 


by Fifty Judges 


by Forty Judges 


by Twenty-five Judges 


544 


—.299 


.000 


-•376 


977 


1.742 


1.096 


1.742 


652 


1.046 


1.058 


— .224 


976 


.224 


.836 


1.742 


900 


•532 


1.028 


—•532 


381 


.694 


.424 


.865 


322 


.694 


.488 


•532 


653 


.612 


•550 


.376 


709 


.612 


.598 


.224 


321 


I-I43 


.728 


•376 


497 


.299 


•447 


• 865 


671 


1.246 


•589 


•532 


511 


•376 


.082 


•376 


473 


.865 


1.308 


1.472 


678 


.224 


.661 


— 1.046 


418 


.224 


.767 


.625 


448 


1-355 


• 836 


•532 


440 


•376 


•587 


1.742 


489 


1.246 


.784 


1.246 


528 


1.472 


.874 


1.742 


532 


1.472 


i^575 


2.596 


530 









of a series just great enough to be recognized as being in one direc- 
tion by 75 per cent of judges, the other 25 per cent of whom place 
the difference in the opposite direction. Thus, again according 
to the ret-ults obtained from the fifty judges, sampler 652 is 
slightly more than i K better than sampler 976, being considered 
so by 76 per cent (or slightly more than 75 per cent) of the judges, 
the remaining 24 per cent of whom reverse this judgment. By the 



The Scale 27 

table 5 this amount is found to be i .046K. By the use of the same 
table and our knowledge of the percentage of judges who made 
"better" judgments, as between each successive pair, all of the dif- 
ferences between successive samplers have been found. They are 
given here in Table V for each set of fifty, forty, and twenty-five 
judges. In Table VI are given the amounts of value for each 
sampler in terms of K, as deduced respectively from the fifty, forty, 
and twenty-five judges. These values have been found in each 
case by adding up from sampler 530 at the bottom (this sampler 
having a value of "zero" as explained earlier) the increments of 
difference shown in Table V between each sampler and the one next 
above it in order. 

11. It is desirable always to have two separate measures of any 
series of mental measurements, in order that the unreliability of 
these measures may be determined in terms of the variability found 
between the two measures. To reduce our results to two compar- 
able measures, it was here decided to use the results of the fifty 
judges as one measure and to average the results of the forty and 
the twenty-five judges for the second measure, giving equal weight 
to each group within the second measure. The forty judges are 
thus given less weight individually. The reason for this is that 
their manner of making the judgments, which necessitated the 
handling of many more than twenty- two samplers and probably pre- 
vented the direct comparison of the successive samplers in the list of 
twenty-two, made for less reliability of their results individually 
than did the more direct method of judging used by the groups of 
fifty and twenty-five judges. 

The fifth column in Table VI shows the value of each sampler 
found by taking the average or median between its value according to 
the group of forty and its value according to the group of twentyfive. 

12. The next step was to obtain a single value for each of the 
twenty-two samplers which should represent all the judgments 
made upon it. Column 6 of Table VI gives the measures of value 
obtained from all judges, by averaging the values according to the 
group of fifty judges with the values according to the combined 
groups of forty and twenty-five judges. 

13. A measure of the reliability of the values of column 6 was 
obtained and appears in column 7 of Table VI as a list of P. E.'s 

* A convenient form of which can be found in Thorndike's Mental and Social 
Measurements, p. 228. In this table what is here called K, is called A/P.E. 



28 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

applying respectively to the value of the sampler opposite to which 
it stands. These P. E.'s for each value define the limits above and 
below the value, within or beyond which there is an equal likelihood 
that the real value (or that which would be determined by an 

Table VI. The amounts of value for each of twenty-two samplers, according 
to different groups of judges, found by adding successive amounts of differences 
from zero tip 



Samplers 


Value 

according 

to fifty 

judges 


Value 

according 

to forty 

judges 


Value 

according 

to twenty-five 

judges 


Value 
according to 
the average 
of the group 
of forty and 
the group of 
twenty-five 

judges 


Value 
according to 
the average 
between the 
group of fifty 
and the aver- 
age of the 
groups of 
forty and of 
twenty-five 


p. E. of final 
amalgamated 
measure of 
value (Given 
only for the 

fifteen 

samplers to be 

used later) 


544 


16.155 


15-316 


16.028 


15.672 


15-96 




977 


16.454 


15-316 


16.404 


15.860 


16.16 


.181 


652 


14.712 


14.220 


14.662 


14.441 


14.58 


.082 


976 


13.666 


13.162 


14.886 


14.024 


13.84 


.109 


900 


13442 


12.326 


13-144 


12.735 


13.09 




381 


12.910 


11.298 


13.676 


12.487 


12.70 


.129 


322 


12.216 


10.874 


12. 811 


11.842 


12.03 




653 


11.522 


10.386 


12.279 


11-332 


ir-43 


.058 


709 


10.910 


9.836 


11.903 


10.869 


10.89 




321 


10.298 


9.238 


11.679 


10.458 


10.38 


.049 


497 


9-155 


8.510 


11-303 


9.906 


9-53 




671 


8.856 


8.063 


10.438 


9.250 


9-05 


.120 


511 


7.610 


7-474 


9.906 


8.690 


8.15 




473 


7-234 


7-392 


9-530 


8.461 


7-85 


•373 


678 


6.369 


6.084 


8.058 


7.071 


6.72 




418 


6.145 


5-423 


9.104 


7.263 


6.70 


•340 


448 


5-921 


4.656 


7.858 


6.257 


6.09 


.102 


440 


4.566 


3.820 


7.326 


5-573 


5-07 


•306 


489 


4.190 


3-233 


5-584 


4.408 


4-30 


.066 


528 


2.944 


2.449 


4-338 


3-393 


3-17 


.136 


532 


1.472 


1-575 


2.596 


2.085 


1.78 


.186 


530 















infinite number of the samplers) lies. This was obtained, in the 
case of each sampler, by using two estimates of its value: one, the 
estimate made by the group of fifty judges; the other, the estimate 
made by the combined groups of forty and twenty-five judges. The 
average deviation of these two measures from their joint averages 



The Scale 2<) 

was found, and this A. D. of the distribution was divided by the 
square root of the number composing it (here 2) in order to find the 
measure of reliabiHty of the average. This measure of reUabihty, 
being in terms of an A. D., was multipHed by six-sevenths to turn 
it into a P. E. While each P. E. is thus itself subject to consider- 
able unreliability, having been obtained from only two measures, 
the average of all the P. E.'s is a very reliable measure of the limits 
above and below the value within which each value as given would 
have an equal chance of falling were it to be obtained from an 
infinite number of judgments. This average for fourteen samplers 
is .159. 

14. The amalgamated measure of value for the twenty-two 
samplers given in column 6 of Table VI served as the basis for the 
final selection of samplers which should constitute the completed 
scale. Fifteen of the twenty-two samplers were chosen for this 
purpose. They were so selected that the values between each suc- 
cessive pair should be as nearly as possible equal. 

15. All of the steps which were gone through in determining the 
values of the twenty-two samplers after the judgments had been 
made upon them, were now gone through again for the fifteen 
samplers. The original judgments were used as it was desirable 
to compare directly each successive pair of the retained series. 
Table VII gives the consolidated review of this work for the fifteen 
samplers. It corresponds to the information given about the twenty- 
two samplers in Tables II, III, IV, V, and VI. 

16. It now remained to compute one final single measure of merit 
for each of the fifteen samplers which constitute the final scale. In 
doing this we used the results obtained for the fifteen samplers in 
which we have directly compared the judgments of "better" made 
in the case of each adjacent pair, and also the results obtained when 
intermediate samplers were placed between some of the final ones. 
The working up of the data took account of these intermediate 
samplers. It was first thought that in doing this it would be better 
to give more weight to the values determined when the judgments 
compiled for the fifteen samplers alone were used, since samplers 
of intermediate amounts of merit being used in the other case 
might have caused some unreliability; but when it was found that 
the average for the P. E.'s was greater when the more direct method 
was used, in which fifteen only were evaluated, it was decided to 
give equal weight in the two cases. It must at this point be re- 



30 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



^ .2. 



^ 



^ 






H 5 



.2 5 



E .2 



J 60 -2 

^ t. -is 

ho. °' 

° I > 

> j3 OJ 

« J J= 

J- .13 '■> 

^01 O 



« o >S 



CO (h .t:! 



2 -S •= 



> 5 



p3}BniB3iBuiE jBuy JO -a •£ 


-0 w 

w q 


■* M 

M -^t 


N 

Ov 

CS 


r^ 00 

•^ CS -<t 
q CS ro 


CS 



M 


vo 

VO 

ro q 


VO -0 
ro 00 

M M 


aAg-Xiu3AV} p puB X}joj 
JO sdnojS aqi jo saSBjaAB am 
puB X?jg JO dnoiS aqi uaa^iaq 
aSEjaAB aqi o? SuipjooDB anjBA 


10 00 

"O 10 '^ 

M M 


Ov CS 

to NO 

n M 


Ov 
ro 




Ov t^ 

00 00 t^ 
00 t- >o 


Ov 



CM 


t^ 00 

M l> 

ro w 


saSpnC 3Atj-X}uaMi jo dnojS 
aqi pue" Ajjoj jo dnoiS aq; jo 
aSBjaAE aqi oj SuipjooDB aniBA 


t^ 00 M 

<N Ov 
00 -T 0\ 

XT) \n -^ 


^ 

-* Ov 

CS 00 
CO 

M M 


CO 
Ov 
Ov 


Oi Ov CO 
M Tt vO 
00 CS CS 

00 00 t^ 


10 


ro 00 
t^ 
m -^ 

m ■* 


ro m 
Ov 00 
ro 

ro N 


saSpnf 
BAg-XjuaAi} 0} SuipjoDDB aniB^ 


00 01 

0\ t^ 00 


CS 

00 vO 

^ >o 

vO CS 


vO 


't 00 -"^ 
•* Ov 

M t^ M 

d Ov Ov 

M 


00 
in 
00 


>o '^ 

CM 00 

ro in 


00 vO 
ro Ov 
ro in 


saSpnt X^joj o; SuipjoaoE anjBA 


•* 00 

M M VO 

00 t^ 


m 01 

CS M 
Ov 

M 


M 
M 
CS 

00 


-* M CO vO 

Ov CS in 
t t^ t 

r~ vO in •<:»• 


ro 
CS ro 
00 rs 

ro ro 


Ov in 
-* m 

M M 


saSpnC X^jg o; SuipiooDB anjCA 


M vO CS 

1/1 t^ t^ 
t^ 10 ■* 

M M M 


LO rt 
■* '^ 
Ov CO 

ro CS 

M M 


CS 

00 


M 


CS in 
t^ ■* 
Ov in M 

00 r~ vO 


Ov 
m 


vO 
vO Ov 
m M 


•<a- CS 

Ov ■* 

CS M 


saSpntaAij 
-X}uaA\; Xq pauimia^ap sb '3 


CS -^ (N 

r~ CS t^ 

l-t 1 M 


00 

M -<t 

00 
ro M 


CS 


vO ■* 
^ Ov ■* 

CON 

M M 


IN 

ro 
in 


r-i vO 

M M 


M vO 

■^ Ov 
t^ m 

M CS 


saSpnt 
Aijoj Aq pauiaija;ap se '^ 


vO 00 t^ 

Ov "1 

10 

W M M 


vO -0 

CS M 

M Ov 


t^ 
t^ 


CO 00 t^ 
Ov r- vO 
r^ CS r~ 

M 


vO 
ro 
00 


00 00 

in t^ 


-^ in t^ 
i^ r~ in 
00 in in 

M 


sa3pnt X:)jg Xq pauiuijaiap se '^ 


CS -0 00 M M 
■* -* t-~ t^ 
t^ t- -0 -^ 

MM MM 





Ov 

M 


01 in •* 
t^ in CS 

■* CO <M 

M M 


in vO vO 
in t^ ■* 
ro ro CS 

M M 


CS CS M 
l^ t^ ro 

■<a- ■* m 

M M 1 


s;uau]3pnt .ja^iaq, 3ui3ieuj 
sa3pn( aAy-xVuaM^ jo %us6 jaj 


00 Tt 00 
00 •* 00 



t- 

M 


■<4- -0 00 
00 t^ vO 00 


VO 


00 
00 00 


00 -0 
00 Ov 


,XuBuopjodojd, puE _Xj[Ent)a, 
uaaAv^aq' asituoiduioD e sb 
papiAip ajB 's}uaui3pnf .jEnba, 
uaqltt' (saSpnt A}ioj ' 3uotnE) 
S)uau]3pnt ,ianaq, jo luaa jaj 


in 10 "^ wi 10 

q CS 10 vO M 

t-^ vo -^ r^ ro 
t^ t> 00 t^ t^ 


in 
in 

00 



in m 

CO vO t^ 

6 6 6^ 
t-- 00 vO 


m 

ro 

M 


in 

■* M 

in d 
vO r^ 


m 

CS vo vq 
CS in tt 

t~ 00 vO 


.asjoAi, puE ,janaq, 
aqj uaaMjaq XiajBuoijjodojd 
papiAip ajB E)uau]3pn(' ,iEnba, 
uaqju' (saSpnt Xjjoj ' 3uouib)' 
sjuamSpnC .Ja«aq, jo }uaD jaj 


vq up Ov 
M t-^ t-^ 

Ov OS 00 


fO CO 

6 10 
00 r^ 


<> 00 i-» -^ 

d CS M CS 

t^ t^ 00 r- 


vq M CS q sD 
vd di -^ 00 d d 
t^ vo r- x^ t^ 


.aSJOM, puE 

.jajiaq, aq? uaaM^aq AnBnba 
papiAip ajB sjuauiSpnt .jBnba, 
uaqjvi' (saSpnC X}joj ' 3uouib) 
s)uau3pnC ,j3}iaq, jo juaD iaj 


IT) q es 
CS »o M 

VO vO 00 


q q 

U-) M 


CS 

vO 


Ov in M 

r~. dv t-~ 

vO f- vO 


vd 



CS CS 

M vd 
vO vO 


CS p< r^ 

vd M 00 
vO r~ m 


sjuauiSpnf .iBtiba, apBui 
oqM 8a3pnC X)joj jo ;ua3 jsj 


to 
6 d r^ 

t^ vO M 


00 

fh M 

CS C*3 


>n 

CS 
CS 


M N t^ 

CO in ro 


Ov 
in 
ro 


m in 

P) CS 


in in m 
■^ m 10 


s^uainSpnf ,asjoM, apEni 
oqM saSpnf Xjibj jo ^uao jaj 


*^ 9 9 

CS 10 6 


M M 

ro CO 

M M 


in 

CS 
CS 


in Ov q 
d r^ M 

CS M CS 


in 

M 


in in 


m m 

n' CS 

M M 


sjuaniSpnC .iaijaq, apEui 
oqi» saSpnt Ajjoj jo }uaD jaj 


>n »o 
r^ 10 CS 


M CO 

CO lA 
>o >o 


q 
in 
m 


^ Ov ro 
vd vd in 
in t^ m 


00 


q q 
d d 


q in 
in ci d 

•* ^ CO 


s;uaui3pnt .Ja^aq, apEui 
oqM 893pnf X)jij JO )ua3 jaj 


00 vo 
00 r^ t~ 


00 00 


-^ CS vO 
Ov 00 00 m 


rs 

00 




vO 00 


rr -* vO 
00 00 ro 


paicdmoa BJ3[<Jaies 


r^ ts vo 
r~ 10 t^ 

Ov vO Ov 


M CO 

00 10 
ro vO 


M M ro 00 
CS r^ f^ M 
CO vO ^ •^ 


CO 


Ov 00 CS 
■^ 00 CS ro ro 
If ■^ \r) \r) \r> 



The Scale 



31 



marked that an equivocal issue arose in securing the difference 
between samplers 381 and 653 in the case of the twenty-five judges, 
when the direct method of comparing judgments between the two 
was used. All of these twenty-five individuals judged sampler 381 
as "better" than 653. Theoretically, it is impossible to assign an 
amount in terms of K to a difference which is noted by 100 per cent 
of the judges. The issue was met by assigning that amount of K 
which corresponds to a "better" judgment made by 99.5 per cent of 
the judges. Since the reliability of the table from which these 
values of K were derived decreases as we reach the extreme of 100 
per cent of "right" or "better" judgments, the fact of the inclusion 
of this value of K when determining the final values for the fifteen 
samplers by the direct method is one more reason why the values 
determined by this latter method were not given extra weighting 
in the final consolidation. 

The decision reached was that the final values as arrived at by 
the "direct" and "indirect" methods should be given equal weights. 
An average between them constitutes the final scale values for each 
sampler. They are as follows: 



Original Sampler No. 


Final Identification 
Symbol 


Final Scale Value 


977 





16.4 


652 


N 


151 


976 


M 


143 


381 


L 


131 


653 


K 


II-5 


321 


J 


10.4 


671 


I 


8.9 


473 


H 


7.8 


418 


G 


6.7 


448 


F 


6.1 


440 


E 


51 


489 


D 


4-3 


528 


C 


3-2 


532 


B 


1.8 


530 


A 


^ 



SECTION IV 
FAULTS IN SEWING 

THE ANALYSIS OF FAULTS 

The literature of educational psychology is each year becoming 
more replete with books and articles concerned with faults or errors 
made by children in the various school subjects. Such work is 
valuable to the educator in several ways, and various authors have 
studied faults with different purposes in mind. 

Studies of children's errors are frequently made to aid the admin- 
istrator in evaluating the success of various teaching methods and 
the personnel of his teaching corps.^ 

Studies of faults are often used in determining specific habits 
which should be formed. Freeman, ^ Scott,^ McNamara,^ and 
Pintner and Gilliland ^ have, by their investigations of faults in 
pupils' work, made valuable contributions to the teaching of hand- 
writing, arithmetic, shorthand, and reading. Hollingworth, in a 
recent study of special disability in spelling,^ has, among other con- 
tributions given us an analysis of spelling errors. She uses this as a 
basis for the study of improved methods for the teaching of spelling. 

The mode of a child's or an adult's response, as determined by 
the kind of error or falling off from correct performance, has for 
some tim.e been used in determining the degree of mental develop- 
ment reached. Binet ^ so used the type of response in defining 
words and evaluating other situations, and Freeman * and others 
show how mental development is reflected in the kind of departure 

' Examples of such are found in Rice, J. M., "The Futilitj^ of the SpelHng Grind," 
The Forum, vol. xxiii, 1897. 

Judd, C. H., Measuring the Work of the Public Schools, Cleveland; Cleveland Foun- 
dation Survey, 1915, p. 290. 

2 Freeman, E. N., The Teaching of Handwriting, 1914. 

' Scott, W., "Errors in Arithmetic," Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, vol. iii, 1916. 

* McNamara, E. L., The Methods of Teaching Shorthand, 1914. 

' Pintner and Gilliland, "Oral and Silent Reading," Journal of Educational Psychol- 
ogy, vol. vii, 1916. 

^ Hollingworth, L. S., Psychology of Special Disability in Spelling, 1918. 

' Binet and Simon, "La mesure de developpement de intelligence chez les jeunes en- 
fants," Societe litre Etude psychologie de I'Enfanl, vol. xi, 1911. 

* Freeman, F. W., The Psychology of the Common Branches, 1915, pp. 46-50. 



Faults in Sewing 33 

from correctness which exists in the drawing of children and of 
primitive peoples. 

A study of errors in children's school work is sometimes used by 
the psychologist as a means of defining better their normal process 
of learning. Such a method of treatment was adopted by Thorn- 
dike ^ in demonstrating the habits necessary for correct silent reading. 

Certain as yet unpublished studies of Thorndike have made use 
of a knowledge of children's errors as a corroboration of what might 
be expected from lack of sufficient exercise of many important 
bonds. This lack he finds to be frequent, due to a common failing 
of most of our elementary text-books to give proper attention to 
exercising necessary bonds sufficiently. We may expect a move- 
ment for the revision and re-writing of text-books to come about 
through the impetus from such work. 

Studies of errors and mistakes furnish, as is shown by Bronner,^" 
considerable guidance in the individual diagnosis of unusual cases. 
Bronner advocates a more extensive use of this method,' and its 
adoption in the study of the so-called normal as well as abnormal 
individual child. 

As a general method for use in the study of heredity and brain 
anatomy many physiologists have long used the careful study of 
errors and mistakes in school subjects, particularly those found in 
reading. 

This section, which deals with a study of faults found in children's 
sewing, follows only a few of the lines of research indicated above. 
For one thing, it deals with faults of the finished product, not at all 
with those of the process of sewing, except as these, of course, indi- 
rectly result from the latter. Our main problems have been the 
following: 

1 . To make an analysis of all the faults which the sewing sampler, 
which forms the material of our study, might contain, and to show 
how this analysis is useful in furthering some of the important con- 
ditions of improvement in sewing. 

2. To find the distribution of the amounts of each fault present 
in a set of sixty-four samplers. This is done for all the faults when 
grouped under twenty-three headings, and also separately for six 
items making up one of these twenty-three headings. 

' Thorndike, E. L., "Reading as Reasoning: A Study of Mistakes in Paragraph 
Reading," Journal of Educational Psychology, June, 1917, vol. viii. No. 6. 
1° Bronner, A. F., The Psychology of Special Abilities and Disabilities, 1917. 



34 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

3. To find the correlation which exists between the amount of 
each fault which a sampler possesses and its total merit as judged 
in terms of our scale. This also is done for all faults when grouped 
under twenty-three headings, and separately for six items making 
up one of these twenty-three headings. 

4. To find the correlation between the average amount of all 
faults possessed by a sampler and its total value in terms of our 
scale. 

5. To find the correlation between the number of faults possessed 
by a sampler and its total value in terms of our scale. 

6. To find the correlation between the average amount of all 
faults possessed by a sampler and the number of faults it 
possesses. 

7. To find the comparative reliability of judgments made upon 
the different faults. 

8. To find the correlation which exists between two of these 
facts, namely, the comparative reliability of judgments concerning 
various faults, and the comparative agreement between the different 
faults with general merit. We have sought, that is, to find the cor- 
relation between two correlations, the first of which is between two 
sets of judgments concerning the amount of the fault present, and 
the second of which is between the amount of the fault present (as 
determined by the average of all the judges) and the amount of 
general merit of the total sampler. 

The analysis of faults which might exist in the particular piece 
of sewing we are dealing with was made in the following manner: 

Eleven of the twelve individuals who made the judgments upon 
the 854 samplers were asked to record the factors which influenced 
them in making judgments, and to number these factors in the 
order of their importance in so influencing them. Table VIII gives 
the results of these eleven records. Very little attempt has been 
made to classify these replies, it being desired rather that the 
reader see them in their original wording, in which some are ex- 
pressed in positive, some in negative terms. When two influencing 
factors were said to have equal importance they are given the 
same number in the table. 

Another source of assistance in making the analysis was obtained 
as follows: 

Several classes which were studying methods of teaching sewing 
and cooking in the practical arts department of Teachers College 



Faults in Sewing 



35 



Table VIII. Factors influencing the judgment of eleven individuals in 

judging eight hundred and fifty-four samplers. Numbers refer 

to the order of importance of each factor to each judge 



JUDGES 



C D 



H 



K 



STITCHES 
Quality of stitch 
Evenness of stitch 
Size of stitch 
Slant of stitch 
Good arrangement — crookedness of 

stitches 
Large irregular stitches and crooked line 

of stitching 
Fine straight even line of stitches 
Uniformity of size of stitches 
Spacing of stitches 
Evenness of line of stitching 
Unevenness of stitches 
Uniformity of slant of stitches 
Straightness of lines 
Backstitch loose 
Overcasting stitch loose 
Hemming stitch loose 
Hemming stitch too deep on hem 
Hemming stitches tooclose-go backward 
Hemming stitches too far apart 
Bad arrangement of stitches 
Small size of stitches, running and hem 

ming 
Fineness of stitching 
Even spacing of stitching 
Straightness of stitching 
Comparison of the stitch 'as is' and 'ai 

should be' 
Tension of stitch 
Length of stitch 
Execution of stitches — proper method, 

hemming backward 
Length of stitch in backstitch and com 

bination 
Evenness in size and slant of stitches 
Correct position of stitches 
Evenness of lines 



36 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 
Table VIII — Continued 



JUDGES 



ABCDEFGHI JK 



KNOTS AND FASTENINGS 

Poor knots 

Poor ending or beginning of row 

Large knots showing and ends of 

threads hanging 
Insecure fastening of stitches so that 

sampler rips apart 
Big knots 

Absence of large and poorly made knots 
Ugly knots and fastenings 
No fastenings 
Well-fastened knots 
Knots 
Bad knots 
Sloppy fastenings 
Knots on right side 

THREAD 

Thread pulls so tight that sampler is 

puckered 
Ends of thread 
Double thread 
Thread drawn tight 

SEAM 

Thick bunchy seam 

Size of seam 

Evenness of seam 

Very large seams 

Very small seams 

Even seams 

Straightness of seams 

Straightness of hem or seam 

Straight seam 

HEMS 
Evenness of hem 
Edges not turned in hem 
Hem smooth, not puckered or drawn up 
Hem not turned straight at end 
Even turning of hem 
Uneven hem 
Slant of hemming 
Hem on wrong side 



Faults in Sewing 
Table VIII — Continued 



37 



JUDGES 



ABCDEFGHI JK 



OVERCASTING 

Overcasting too deep and close 
Overcasting thread not parallel 
Slant of overcasting 
Depth of overcasting 

PIECING OF TWO PARTS 
Straightness with which two pieces were 

sewed together 
Uneven piecing of two parts 

NEATNESS AND CLEANLINESS 

Cleanliness and neatness 

Soiled, wrinkled and generally mussy 

appearance of sampler 
General neat appearance 
Dirty 

Neatness of cloth 
Cleanliness 
Rumpled cloth 
Soiled cloth 
Neatness — frayed edges not trimmed 

before overcasting 
General neat appearance 
Cleanliness of material 

GENERAL 

General appearance 
Failure to follow directions 
Incomplete — evidently slow, sometimes 

good 
Tightness or puckering of work 
Finishing off 
Evidence of effort 
Uneven, crooked sewing 
Edges not trimmed 
Understanding of thing to be done 
Spacing of lines on sampler 
Following instruction — width of hem 
Completion of work 
Orderly arrangement — spacing 
Basting — a straight line 



17 



9 
10 



I 

20 



38 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 
Table VIII — Continued 





JUDGES 




A 


B 


C 


D 


E 


F 


G 


H 


I 


J 


K 


GENERAL 

Running or backstitching at uniform 
distance from line of basting 

Neatness and cleanliness, i. e., smooth- 
ness of cloth, no evidence of much 
ripping out, cleanness 

Aesthetic effect, of even spacing, and 
beginning and finishing rows of 
stitches at exactly same distance 
from ends of sampler 




6 

8 

9 





















were visited and the students were asked to take home and fill in 
the following blank: 

Write name, major subject, and whether you have ever been a teacher of 
supervisor of sewing (state which). 

What are the five worst faults in the finished product of children's sewing: 
(c) In order of badness — beginning with the worst, 
(ft) In order of frequency — beginning with the fault which appears 
oftenest. 

It was particularly emphasized that the answers were to refer 
to the finished product, not to the process of sewing, and that the 
answers should be as specific as possible. It was also explained that 
the finished product they were to bear in mind was some small, 
simple article, as a small bag or sampler like the one used in our 
experiments. 

The above blank and explanation were also sent to a class in the 
extension department of the University of Iowa. Forty replies 
were received in all, thirty-five from individuals who were at that 
time, or had at some time been, teachers of sewing. Table IX gives 
the results of these replies. Again very little attempt at classifica- 
tion has been made, it being preferred to retain the original wording 
of the replies. When two quite distinct faults were included under 
one heading, however, the terms are divided in our table but given 
the same number. 

With these two sources of guidance and her own experience to 
draw from the author made a tentative analysis of all the faults 



Faults in Sewing 



39 



•^^ 

ti 
8 
e 



^ 



■u S 






S « 



o 

s 



ca 
< 









"3 rt 






o lU Ji, 
C 9J .2 



5r O -t-" 






^ 


i 


f^ 1 


■% 1 


b. 1 




■^ 1 


^ 1 


<^ 1 ^ 


-^ 1 


^ 1 


^ 1 


^ 1 




r^> 1 ■* ro 


<> 1 " f^ 


:? 1 


;? 1 


<M 1 


::: 1 


:^ 1 


O 1 "5 to 

IN 1 


J 1 


^1 


J. 1 


^ 1 


:? 1 


? 1 


^1 


^ 1 


;, 1 


2 1 


^ 1 


Co 1 ■* to 


-^ 1 


^1 « to 


1^ 1 IT) in 


^ 1 


^1 


IN 1 M lO 


- 1 


1^ 

Si 

■~ o 

?:» (N 

1 " 

o -S 
"o S 

s 


^il 1 1 1 ^ « 

•2 =S §i £ S ^ ^ -Do--. 

W 



40 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



"o 



X 



P3 
< 



o 




o. 
~1 


, 




ro ro 




ro rn 


-c 




"-1 




^ 


■* CN 


^ 


ro ■* 1/5 f»5 ■<t u^ 




Tj- •* IT) ro 


fn 




O 






■* \n 


00 


ro f-> 




~) m 








N M in ■* 


-SI- 


in « 




in -t ro ro 


M 








O 


■5- N 




O 


Qo 


" ro 


t: 


(N TJ- 


>o 


fO >-■ 


"-1 


ro Tl- ■* m 


■tf 


H CO "1 i/> 


fn 


M Tf N m 




(N c. 


:; 


ro N 


o 


ro c» 


Oi 


m m 


Co 


mm rn <N 


^ 


" « 


« 


" " 


■^ 


N ro rn N 


^l- 


r^ ro « 


"^ 


N N 


M 




H 


ro ro 


s ■« 

2 "" 

o . 


S o S E 
a ^ "^ ^ 1 o S 

8 = 2 ^ .s 8 «; "S 

1 1 : 1,1 r^s^ 

1 s ^ -^ -s ^ 1 ^ s -s g 1 S s .5 i 
i 1 ^ -^ 1 ° -2 1 -2 1 1 c ! -: S i ^ 

t/3 



Faults in Sewing 



41 








1 1 




^1 




% 1 




5^ 1 




^ \ ^- 




^ 1 




fn 1 




f^ 1 




S, 1 




S> 1 




^ 1 




Oi 1 IN Tj- 




=0 1 
N 1 








« 1 
M 1 




r^ 1 




■^1 N ■<1- 




M 1 




!:j 1 




S 1 




^) 1 




Oi 1 10 




Co 1 ro >0 




1^ 1 " rO 




01 M PO 




■n 1 N w 




? 1 




? 1 




(\< 1 -^ ro 




H 1 (N « 




01 ■^ >n 




^ 1 




00 1 N Tt 




(^ 1 M M ■* ■* 




01 ro Tt 




10 1 ro M 




•^ 1 PO 




^ 1 




r^ 1 N -"t "5 N 




" 1 




1^ 

a <^ 
. 


Thread 

Fastening thread insecurely (at end of 

seams) 
Using too long a thread 

Pulling thread too tightly 

Poorly fastened threads 

Thread soiled 

Hems 

Uneven hems 

Hems of varying widths 

Carelessly measured hems 

Irregular turning of hems 

Lack of exactness in folding hems 

Poor hemming 

Hems (i) not stitched on edge, (2) full- 
ness taken in by large pleats forming 
angular hem line 

Hem stitched in without actually catch- 
ing hem into place 



42 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



n 
< 



% 1 


1 


^ 1 


% 1 


5^ 1 


"^ 1 


1^ 1 


5; 1 


SI 1 


^ \ 


^ 1 


^ 1 


^1 


"^ 1 


M 1 


IM 1 


N 1 


<M 1 


M 1 


;:: 1 


?j 1 


N 1 


S 1 


00 1 


I^ 1 lO !S 


^1 ^^ 


x^ 1 m M 


? 1 


? 1 


Ml \n \r, 


-. 1 


2 1 


^ 1 


00 1 


^s. 1 lO lO ro ro 


^ 1 


••^ 1 H M N ■* 


> 1 


^ 1 


N ro ro 


•^ 


"5 '^ 

•S 8 

-s: . 

■« o 
s -■ 

^ 1 

II 
•11 


k4 C 

o o 

2 "S S 

•S ° a 

2 M ^ .S .S 
■S. M -S ^ S 

s 1 . = ^ ^ 1 

1 ^ 1 1 i 2 „ 1 J 1 1 i 1 

til 1 § ^ 1 i 1 1 1 ^- i 

U mo 



Faults in Sewing 



43 



o 


w n 




n N 


Co 

"1 






N (N 




w •* 


"1 






ro lo >o " 






'^ 


ro M 












ro M 






1^ 


n ■* 


>o 


\n in n « 


>^ 


w ro 


^J- 


MM •* fO 




n in 






N 




O 


M M 




M Ht 


00 


(S •^t lO M 


J^ 

N 


•* M 




>/) lO 








ro M 


"1 


lO " 


*^ 


n •* 






O 




O. 


M M 


00 




t^ 




■o 


tj- M "o in 


■^ 


(S •* M 


'<^ 


lO •* 


t^ 


ro Tj- 


M 




M 




s ■« 

a o 

-a . 
S ? 
^ o 

■3 -S 
■1 1 

s 


£ It 
(u a *-> 
XI a *j 

S 2 1 

"= J > 4) .ti 

■SI . -a 1 8 2 2 

^ 1 1 1 i ! 1 ^ 1i ii 1 1 1 

il I 1 1 i 1 2 li si Ij 1 5 ,' 
iS ^ § ^ -s i J 11 Is S| 1 1 « 



44 



The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



I 

w 

a 
< 











00 

"1 




t^ 

'^ 




"1 






N 


^ 




"1 


N (N " « 


1*1 






1/0 i/> n ro 


o 


" '^ 


CM 




00 
<M 


" " 






tM 


't M 


«0 












<M 


" ■" 


<M 




o 




o, 




°^ . 




t^ 




<> 


M ^ 


^ 


" fO 




M (N (N (N 


"-> 




•-1 


" " 


::; 


M n 


o 


o) •* 


Oi 




00 




'- 




o 




•^ 


Tt ro 


•I- 




fn 




<M 




»-i 


■* ■* 


2 "2 

~ a 

c 

a N 

i - 

1 s 

^ g 


O I- S -o o 

§ S 5 :^ 2-S-2 >. 1 ^ ^ 
>^ 1 i i : g :f ^ ^ - s 

§ .S i 1 .s -c 's :5 c 2 5 o >; 2 s 

U M 



Faults in Sewing 



45 



o 


1 1 


^ 1 


% \ - - -t ^ 


f^ 1 


>o 1 


^ 1 


^ 1 


"1 1 


fn 1 


^ 1 


^ 1 


o, 1 


00 1 N IN 
M 1 


f^ 1 


-S 1 


^1 


^ 1 


^ 1 
M 1 


c. 1 


- 1 'SJl'^ 


% 1 


? 1 


^ 1 


t 1 


^ 1 


? 1 


? 1 


? '1 '^ ^ 


::; 1 


^1 "* '* 


S 1 


a 1 


^1 


t-- 1 


^ 1 


^ 1 


^ 1 


"> 1 


c. 1 


" 1 


S - 


o ° S -S ^' i 3 s ^ •§ s 

S. 1 S-g c 2 s. ^ 1 -§1 

- § - ^ : s ^ E :- ^ 1 s 5 - a s -S 

=3 =3 -S s 1 2 S o y 5 g 1 1 .^ 1 1 § 

^ ^ 3-0-3^. ognSo. §-S .2 5"^ o ^ c tog 
■- •- "s ^ ^ i^ = ■= -2 o .i3 w o p. n " ^ c I- I/O 



46 The Measurement oj Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



o 



w 

m 
<: 
H 



o 
■<»■ 


w \r> 








\n Ml 


1^ 








^ 




^ 








^4 
''I 








o 


ro M 






00 


\n \n 














■^ 








tM 








O 
M 




O, 


M ■* f«5 


CO 








>o 




■^ 




'I- 








!^ 




H 

H 




o 


lO w 


o. 


■* r<5 N tj- rO M 


OO 




t^ 




VD 




■^ 




"* 




'^ 


•<t fO 


M 


■* M 


»-i 


M M (N N « lO 


1^ 

~ O 

5 . 
?"> ^ 

* '^ 

6 "^ 

o . 
■? o 

«_ 1 

I; 


S O I, E H 

■5 s 2 a a „ " 
bo o 4)2 i2-!s ""S 

•1 S £ - ^ 1 S , 1 ' ^ s S >. 

^ I 1 .^ f ^^§o S ^^^- .^ . 1 § 5 
g ^ 1 S 2 1 ^ 1 1 - -S .S .5 ^ •- 

.5 y ^ B o ujim o 5'02'a - ° >=_, 

t % i I a "^^l^a I tit I ^ ^tl 



Faults in Sewing 



47 













M W 




« m 


V2 
1^ 




"1 


M M ^ Tt lO lO 


"1 












^n 


M l-H M N 


o 


N m -t \n \r> -^ 


Oi 




oo 






M « 






"-1 














« W •* Tt lO « 


M 




O 
























1-^ 


















M n 


Oi 




^ 




t-> 




"O 




>^ 




"» 




'^ 




<^ 




■^ 




s •« 

S « 

1 ;^ 

-s . 

1 2 

"^ i 

a K 
II 


aj 3 -a i5 S 'S S 

1 ^ 1 . 1 :S| ^ 2 N ^ 
^ a 2 b 1 l-l^ 1 S §1 -° 

o 



48 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



<o 



w 

►J 
m 

< 





N M fO M- ^ N 






Co 




t^ 

^ 


" 










1- 




1^ 








•-I 




fn 








Co 




1^ 




^ 
w 




■^ 




^ 




"^ 
^ 




^4 




!^ 




o 








Co 








"O 




■o 

•^ 




-1- 




1-1 




►-1 




^ 




o 




Oi 




Co 




t^ 




<i 




«o 




^ 




"1 




'^ 




"' 




1^ 

a ". 

a r^ 
■« . 

s S 

o . 

1 2 

"3 ^ 

'A 0« 

o -S 

3 S 
^ § 


O a; 
^ ^ O, 

B % 1 

aj b o '^ 

^ ^ o 1 
"J c ^ 

„ 01 M 3 

g >> c g c 

g 1 E .^ 2 
^ r. baa; 

>*- >« >p c ca 

A) ^ s -c S 

y y sort 

Ctj Cq (u t.— 1 

hJ J a, ^ 



Faults in Sewing 49 

which might be found in the sewing sampler under consideration. 
When she had done this, she and four other women candidates for 
the Ph.D. degree in Education at Columbia University went 
through her analysis step by step, adding to and subtracting from it. 
When it was complete they carefully read through the material 
given here in Tables VIII and IX to see that everything was in- 
cluded in their analysis which had been mentioned by the forty 
students and the eleven original judges, and which really are faults 
which might appear in our finished sewing sampler. The aim in 
making the analysis was to give a complete and also a mutually 
exclusive list of the possible faults. When finished it was read to a 
college professor and a college instructor, both specialists in the 
teaching of sewing methods, and was approved by them as being 
complete. 

The final analysis which appears in Table X is thus the work of 
five students of Education, based upon suggestions coming from 
forty-three teachers (eight of these belonging to the original group 
of twelve judges) and eight other women, and approved by two 
specialists from the field of the teaching of sewing. In the opinion 
of the five students of Education and the two sewing specialists this 
analysis contains a list of all the faults which could appear in a 
finished sampler made according to our directions. 

The purpose for which this analysis was made was twofold. In 
the first place, it was hoped that as it stands it will be a direct aid 
in the teaching of sewing. In the second place, this analysis was 
used, as will be shown under the heading "The Measurement and 
Significance of Various Faults," in a later part of this section, as the 
basis for a study of the number of faults which actually do exist 
in children's sewing under present conditions. 

In order to justify the claim that this analysis may be of direct 
assistance in helping the teacher to bring about improvement in a 
child's sewing, which, after all, is the main direct aim of sewing 
instruction, the reader is asked to pause a moment to consider just 
what is meant by improvement in sewing. If we think of sewing 
ability as being represented by a horizontal line the left-hand end 
of which represents zero amount of sewing ability and the right-hand 
end of which represents perfection in sewing, and if we let the inter- 
mediate portions of the line represent a continuously increasing 
amount of ability from zero to perfection, then improvement in 



50 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

Table X. A detailed analysis of the faults possible in the sampler described 
in Section j. 

Note. The technical meaning ot stitches and spaces is here disregarded. A stitch here 
means the thread toward one as the sampler is held on the side on which the 
seam appears. A space is the distance between two stitches 

1. Running Stitch: 

Stitch too large 

Spaces too large 

Stitches uneven in size 

Spaces uneven in size 

Disproportion between size of stitches and spaces 

Line of stitching crooked 

Stitches drawn too tight 

Stitches drawn too loose 

2. Back Stitch: 

Stitches too large 

Back stitch not taken back far enough 
Back stitch taken back too far 
Stitches uneven in size 
Line of stitching crooked 
Individual stitching crooked 
Stitches drawn too tight 
Stitches drawn too loose 
Occasional omission of back stitch 

3. Combination Stitch: 

Stitches too large 

Spaces too large 

Stitches uneven in size 

Spaces uneven in size 

Back stitching at irregular intervals 

Disproportion between size of stitches and spaces 

Line of stitches crooked 

Individual stitches crooked 

Stitches drawn too tight 

Stitches drawn too loose 

4. Basting: 

Stitches too large 

Stitches too small 

Type of basting unsuited to purpose 

Stitches uneven in size 

Spaces uneven in size 

Line of basting crooked 

Stitches drawn too tight 

Stitches drawn too loose 



Faults in Sewing 51 

5. Overcasting: 

Stitches too deep 
Stitches not deep enough 
Stitches of uneven depth 
Stitches too close together 
Stitches too far apart 
Stitches at uneven distance 
Stitches of uneven slant 
Stitches of wrong slant 
Stitches drawn too tight 
Stitches drawn too loose 

6. Hemming Stitch: 

Stitches too long 

Stitches too short 

Stitches uneven in size 

Spaces uneven in size 

Stitches too close together 

Stitches too far apart 

Stitches of uneven slant 

Stitches of wrong slant 

Stitches too tight 

Stitches too loose 

Running stitch used, instead of stitch which holds fold down 

7. Hem: 

Too deep for appearance of whole sampler 

Too narrow for appearance of whole sampler 

First turn of hem turned in too far 

First turn of hem not turned in far enough 

First turn of hem unevenly turned in 

First turn of hem not turned in at all 

First turn of hem turned in too many times 

Basting too far from edge of hem 

Basting too near edge of hem 

Hem turned down on side opposite seam 

8. Knots: 

Knots too large 

Knots with loops 

Knots too loose 

Failure of knot to hold 

Knot with loose end 

Knot not concealed when possibh: 

Knots in place of other type of fastening 

Knots on side opposite seam 



52 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

9. Fastenings: 

Fastenings insecure 

Fastenings conspicuous 

Absence of knot or fastening at beginning 

Absence of knot or fastening at end 

Long threads hanging at either end of work 

10. Seam: 

Too deep 

Not deep enough 

Edges of material unevenly joined 

Edges of material not trimmed before overcasting 

Edges of material unevenly trimmed before overcasting 

Sewing not extending to extreme edge of sampler when there is an attempt 

to do so. 
Edges of seam turned over under overcasting 

General : 

Threads of material pulled making uneven edges (possibly due to blunt 

needle) 
Lack of beginning and finishing rows of stitches at exactly same distance 

from ends of sampler 
Poor spacing of rows of stitches from top to bottom 
Thread snarled 
Thread broken 
Double thread used 
Partly broken thread used 
Extra material caught in under sewing 
Wrinkled material 
Soiled material 
Evidence of ripping 
Edges not trimmed 

sewing can be conveniently thought of as advance along this line 
from left to right. If, instead of thinking of sewing ability as of a 
total, we break up the concept into the many elements which com- 
pose it, we may again picture each of these elements as a horizontal 
line, advance along any one of which from left to right will add its 
certain increment to improvement in the more general function of 
sewing ability. To think of sewing ability as thus spread out over 
a horizontal line is useful in that it emphasizes the fact that im- 
provement in this function is improvement in the amount of ability 
possessed. To think of sewing ability as being composed of many 
elements each one of which may be represented by a horizontal line, 



Faults in Sewing 53 

and improvement in any one of which is represented by advance 
along its Hne from left to right, is useful in that it emphasizes the 
fact that improvement in sewing is the sum total of improvements 
in the amounts of the various elements which compose it. 

In what, then, does improvement consist, which makes possible 
advance along these lines? Thorndike, in his Psychology of Learn- 
ing,^^ thus analyzes the concept for us: "Improvement is the addi- 
tion or subtraction of bonds, or the addition or subtraction of satis- 
fyingness and annoyingness. When any function is improved, either 
some response is being put with or disjoined from, some situation; 
or some state of affairs is being made more satisfying or more annoy- 
ing. The rise of the practice curve parallels the growth of a system 
of habits, attitudes, and interests." By "bond" Thorndike means a 
connection in the nervous system between stimulus and response, 
such that when a given state of affairs arises a certain uniform 
response will automatically come about. Improvement is thus the 
forming and breaking of such connections, or, to use other words, 
the forming and breaking of habits of a very definite sort, plus the 
forming or breaking of likes or dislikes toward definite aspects of 
the work at hand. Thus, to form the connection between the sight 
of two pieces of material unevenly held together to form a seam, and 
the muscular adjustments necessary to bring about their proper 
placement, is to form a "bond," or many "bonds," the formation of 
which brings about their increment of improvement to the general 
function of sewing. More specifically, they bring about improve- 
ment in that element of sewing which might be called "the holding 
of the material," or even more specifically, "the placing of two edges 
to form a seam." This same connection between the sight of the 
two pieces of material unevenly held together and the muscular 
contraction necessary to bring about their proper placement, in- 
volves also the breaking of "bonds." "Bonds," which formerly led 
from this visual perception to the muscular contractions involved in 
continuing to so hold the material, must be broken in order that 
improvement may take place. Their subtraction, in fact, is part 
of the improvement. As for "the addition and subtraction of 
satisfyingness and annoyingness," which Thorndike says are part of 
what we call "improvement," these, too, are illustrated in the case 
under discussion ; for if the child has learned to like or to be satisfied 
by evenness of the placement of the two edges, and to be dissatis- 

'1 Thorndike, E. L., Educational Psychology, vol. ii, p. i86. 



54 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

fied or annoyed by unevenness, an actual improvement has taken 
place which, other things being equal, will surely show itself when 
the next similar situation arises. 

Keeping in mind these ideas of improvement as advancement 
along a line, or lines, which represent various amounts of an ability, 
or of its subdivision, and of advancement as constituted by addition 
and subtraction of bonds, and addition and subtraction of satis- 
fyingness and annoyingness, let us see what light is shed by psy- 
chology upon the factors and conditions of improvement, and 
whether our analysis of the faults found in sewing may in any way 
aid in contributing to these factors and conditions. Again to quote 
from Thorndike's Psychology of Learning}'^ we find that as a sum- 
mary of the "educational conditions of improvement" Thorndike 
says: "Assuming the acceptance of a certain aim for the pupil's 
exercise of a certain function, the selection, arrangement, and 
presentation of subject matter, and the approval, criticism, and 
amendment of the pupil's responses, are means of getting the pupils 
(i) to try to form certain bonds rather than others, (2) to form them 
in a certain order, (3) to identify more easily ^^ the bonds he is to 
try to form, (4) to be more satisfied at the right bond, and more 
unready to repeat the wrong bonds, (5) to be more satisfied by the 
general exercise of the function, and (6) to be more satisfied by 
general improvement in it." 

It is in connection with (3) and (4), above, that our analysis of 
faults may be of use. However, all six of these indications of how 
improvement can be brought about deserve close study, and be- 
cause of their great importance all of them will be touched upon here. 

(i) "To get the pupil to try to form certain bonds rather than 
others." In certain matters connected with the teaching of sewing, 
specialists are themselves not always agreed as to which bonds the 
pupil should try to form. To illustrate this disagreement I shall 
quote from the first four authorities whom I consulted, a part of 
their directions for the making of the overcasting stitch. No two 
of them agreed as to both the depth and distance of the stitches, 
and there is disagreement also as to the direction in which the sew- 
ing should be done. Brietzcke and Rooper ^* say, "Overcasting is 

12 Thorndike. E. L., Educational Psychology, vol. ii, pp. 230-1. 

"Thorndike includes a footnote at this point which reads: " 'More easily' means 
throughout more easily than he would have done if left to his own devices." 
1* Brietzcke and Rooper, Plain Needle Work and Knitting, 1885, p. 21. 



Faults in Sewing 55 

worked from left to right, the needle is inserted about four threads 
below the edge, the thread is passed over the edge. Miss three to 
four threads toward the right, then take four horizontal threads 
on the needle." 

Patton 1^ says, "Begin at the right-hand side. . . . Make the 
stitches one-eighth of an inch down, and one-fourth of an inch apart.'' 

Smith ^^ says, "Overcasting is worked from left to right. . . . 
Run the needle parallel with the edge for one-half inch, and bring 
out about one-eighth of an inch down." 

Woolman ^"^ in discussing the same stitch says, "It is made usually 
from right to left (some prefer to make it from left to right). The 
stitches are of equal size, the depth and distance apart depend on 
the character of the material." 

Such controversies must be settled within the profession, it being 
highly probable, however, that the use of our sewing scale may 
assist specialists in arriving at an agreement. In other matters, 
however, concerning which the members of the household arts 
profession are substantially agreed among themselves as to the 
final outcome which they desire to see fulfilled in a girl's sewing, 
there yet are great differences in teaching methods, which result to 
the pupil in the formation of very different bonds. The older ana- 
lytic method of teaching stitches upon samplers, before their need 
was felt, resulted in the formation of bonds between learning the 
name of a stitch and making that stitch, or between having a small 
piece of material at hand and putting the stitch somewhere upon 
it; but it did not form the bonds between the real situations in 
which hems and seams and gatherings are necessary, and the re- 
sponse of making the proper stitch here in its place. To sew on 
dolls' clothes rather than upon a sampler, if the same amount of 
exercise be given, should lead the pupil to form quite as well the 
bonds required in actual stitch-making. It also should lead the 
pupil to form such bonds as that between the situation "a raw edge 
of material at the bottom of the skirt which if left would ravel out" 
and the response, "Make a hem of such a sort and sewed with such 
a stitch that it will be an added adornment to the dress as a whole." 

Another highly important set of bonds, whose formation often is 
neglected in the teaching of sewing, are those in connection with the 

1^ Patton, Frances, Home and School Sewing, 1901; teachers' edition, pp. 41-2. 
'* Smith, A. K., Needlework for Student Teachers, 1899, p. 90. 
" Woolman, M. S A Sewing. Course, 1911, p. 48. 



56 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

formation of habits of speed. To sew efficiently means quite as 
often to sew quickly as to sew well. School authorities responsible 
for the work in sewing too often neglect this fact or, if they recog- 
nize its truth, they fail at least to provide for it by seeing that 
pupils form the bonds necessary for the attainment of speed. The 
author sincerely hopes that her contribution to the subject of 
measurement in sewing, being, as it is, the means of measurement of 
quality in sewing, will never be construed to imply that achievement 
in quality, at the expense of speed, is always a desideratum in her 
eyes. Her hope, on the contrary, is that now that an objective 
measurement of merit is at hand, which is to some extent comparable 
to the clock as a measure of time, proper adjustment between the 
two desiderata, quality and speed, may be determined in terms of 
one another. She is fully alive to the plea of the investigators of 
sewing instruction in the Cleveland Survey and that of many other 
up-to-date educators that speed is often by far the more neglected 
of these two; and it is her earnest desire that her contribution may 
in some way be put to use to give this important factor its rightful 
place in our schools. Too long have those responsible for sewing 
instruction dillydallied with the notion that the merit of the 
finished product alone was important, too long neglected to give 
instruction in many methods of saving cross-cuts, and, above all, too 
long have they often rewarded rather than made annoying the use- 
less habits of over-careful and punctilious work upon articles which 
would far better have been made quickly than made well. 

(2) "To form bonds in a certain order" has probably been the real 
cause for the teaching of sewing by the use of samplers and for the 
undue emphasis upon precision of workmanship at the expense of 
speed. . Some persons evidently believe that by forming first the 
bonds which have to do with stitch-making and later those 
concerned with the use of ^hese stitches, the whole process of 
learning to sew will be facilitated. Unfortunately the time 
often never arrives when these latter bonds are formed. In 
any case, the assumption referred to certainly is not proved; 
experiment alone can absolutely prove or disprove it. Until such 
is made, however, common sense and experience in other lines be- 
sides that of sewing both tend to emphasize the fact that it is 
economical of both time and labor to "form habits in the way in 
which they will later be used," and that too great an attempt arti- 
ficially to provide for the order of formation of bonds is apt to inter- 



Faults in Sewing 57 

fere with the whole process of learning, due to the detrimental 
effect which such interference often causes in (4), (5), and (6) of 
the list of conditions of learning which we are now studying. How- 
ever, if care is taken that these other conditions — (4), (5), and (6) — 
be not interfered with, it certainly is in accord with sound educa- 
tional theory to expect that certain orders in the formation of bonds 
are preferable to certain other orders, and the average sewing 
teacher should be given more definite knowledge on this point than 
she now is given. Unfortunately, knowledge on this point beyond 
that possessed by sagacious guesses is not at present possessed by 
any one. The early physiological development of gross bodily con- 
trol, as compared to the later development of ability to make fine 
muscular adjustments, suggests, of course, that the age of the pupil 
should be an important determiner of the order of the formation of 
bonds. Experimental evidence should be gathered to determine 
the proper age at which any sewing instruction should first be given, 
and the nature of the bonds which should be formed at various ages. 
If a girl, due to inner growth alone and apart from all training, so 
changes from the age of eight to the age of twelve that she is able to 
thread a needle as well, and as readily is able to profit by sewing 
instruction as is the girl of the same age who for four years has 
been given preparatory work in knitting and card sewing, let us 
recognize the uselessness of the latter preparations. If, on the other 
hand, these preparations are found by experiment to be of benefit, 
let us precisely measure the kind and amount of such preliminary 
training and of its benefit, to future ability in sewing. 

Many' supervisors say that evenness of stitches should be taught 
early, whereas the bonds producing smallness of stitches should be 
of later formation. The results of our experiment, to be reported 
in a later part of this section and which are recorded in Table XIII, 
show that among our selected samplers the fault of large stitches is 
not so great as is the fault of unevenness in stitches. This fact may 
be due to teaching which emphasizes the opposite procedure, namely, 
the teaching of small stitches early; or it may be due to the rather 
unusual manner in which our samplers were selected. As far as it 
goes, it indicates that pupils who vary from very good to very bad 
in their sewing are able as a group to conquer the fault of "stitches 
and spaces too large" as early, or earlier, than they are able to con- 
quer the fault "stitches and spaces uneven in size." All of this 
simply illustrates our contention that knowledge is still lacking 



58 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

which would enable one to know precisely in what order bonds 
should be formed in the teaching of sewing. Undoubtedly some 
preferred order exists which, when discovered, will lead to improve- 
ment in our methods of teaching sewing. 

(3) "To identify more easily the bonds which the pupil is to try 
to form." It was in order to fulfill this condition of improvement 
that our analysis of faults, as given in Table X, was made. In order 
to make improvement in a general function such as sewing, it is 
very decidedly beneficial that the definite elements which consti- 
tute the general function, and along which progress should be made, 
be separately identified by both teacher and pupil. Of course the 
very existence of a fault implies its correlative virtue, and for some 
reasons our analysis might better have been made in terms of virtues 
or excellencies in sewing. As a matter of fact, however, such usage 
would have been rather pedantic. Any one looking at a number of 
sewing samplers and asked to comment on their merit, is very likely 
to be struck by the presence of faults. Had our analysis been 
stated in terms of excellences it would have resolved itself verbally 
mainly into a list of the absence of certain specified faults. For con- 
venience, therefore, this negative handling of the matter has been 
retained. We must remember, also, that the analysis as it stands 
is intended for the teacher. 

Pedagogically, however, it is advised that improvement be 
thought of by the child, at least, and to a certain extent by the 
teacher, as a positive, progressive matter. We hope not that "lack of 
unevenness," but that "greater evenness" shall be stressed ; not that 
"crooked lines" be avoided, but that "straight ones" be the goal. 
The teacher, in fact, will note improvement often through the elimi- 
nation of faults. Her special aim for one particular lesson or series 
of lessons may be to reduce "unevenness of stitches" among the 
class as a whole, or to help Mary Smith not to make such "large 
knots," or Elsie Jones to avoid "puckering of material due to hem- 
ming stitches being drawn too tight." None of these negative 
aspects need, however, be emphasized to the class. As a whole, 
they may be guided to the making of even stitches, this fact being 
often subordinated in their minds to their more immediate purpose 
of producing a beautiful and useful apron. Mary may be taught 
that small knots are made in such a fashion, and Elsie that smooth 
material in her finished hem will come about by pulling the thread 
just hard enough to cause it to lie evenly upon the material. 



Faults in Sewing 59 

Psychologically, improvement in sewing is by our analysis re- 
duced to improvements in the amounts of ninety-nine contributing 
factors. Each one of these factors is expressed in terms of a fault, 
the overcoming of which constitutes improvement in that element. 
According to our earlier description, sewing ability in toto, as far as 
it is expressed in the making of our samplers, is here thought of as 
represented by ninety-nine horizontal lines, each one of which sym- 
bolizes a particular sewing ability. The left-hand end of these lines 
stand for absolute absence of each particular kind of ability, or for 
a certain maximum of the fault in question. The right-hand ends 
of the lines respectively symbolize perfection in that particular 
element. The intermediate portions of the lines from left to right 
represent a continuously increasing amount of the element, when 
considered as an excellence, or a continuously decreasing amount of 
the element, if it is considered as a fault. 

Quality and quantity in sewing ability are thus both cared for: 
quality by the existence of ninety-nine separate items; quantity by 
the existence of lines to represent each item ; the lines signifying that 
various amounts of each item may be present. This representation 
of improvement in sewing can be made, although the faults them- 
selves as given in Table X manifestly express somewhat different 
relationships among themselves. Some faults typically vary from 
zero to some maximum amount. This is true of "Overcasting 
stitches at uneven distances." Perfect evenness is the desideratum. 
From this lack of any of this fault, there may be increasing degrees 
of any amount. In the case of some faults, it is an all or none rela- 
tionship; a fault, that is, either is not present at all or is present in 
its maximum amount. This is true of "Double thread used," "Hem 
turned on side opposite seam," "Running stitch used, instead of 
stitch which holds fold down," and some others. In such cases as 
these, our symbolic line must be thought of as consisting of only 
two points. Such cases, however, are rare, the possibility of inter- 
mediate amounts of each fault being the rule rather than the excep- 
tion. What is worthy of notice is that in perhaps the majority of 
cases two antithetical faults exist, perfection being the golden mean 
between the extremes. Thus, in the case of "Overcasting stitches 
too deep," and "Overcasting stitches not deep enough;" of "Over- 
casting stitches too close together," and "Overcasting stitches too far 
apart." This possibility of erring in either direction from the 
desired goal is an additional reason why the analysis has been given 



6o The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

in terms of faults rather than in terms of excellences. "Overcasting 
stitches, correct as to their distance apart," is an excellence in sew- 
ing, but one which fails to call attention to the two ways in which 
failure to attain it often occurs. 

In naming some of the faults, possibly a further analysis should 
have been made which would show this same possibility of deviating 
from perfection in two ways. "Line of stitching crooked," of course, 
refers to discrepancies which can take place either up or down from 
the golden mean of straightness. In some cases it is probably true 
that an individual child has a tendency always to sew "up" or 
"down," as the case may be. The teacher should be alive to this 
possibility, and in measuring faults which have this double impli- 
cation she should herself, when necessary, amplify our analysis and 
direct the child's attention to the particular form of any fault which 
it is necessary that she be taught to overcome. It more generally 
will happen, however, that children have no individual bent toward 
"upness" or "downness" in their attempt to make a straight line, but 
that to a certain degree these two faults will both be present, making 
for a general "crookedness" in line. In such cases the pedagogical 
procedure should be to avoid the analytical suggestions. 

The discussion of this last point may be taken as an illustration 
of a necessary comment concerning the value of the whole analysis 
of Table X. No analysis can be made which should invariably be 
followed in thought. There are times when more synthetic think- 
ing is highly desirable. There are also times when further analysis 
should supplement the one at hand. There are many entries on 
Table X as it stands which should not generally be given piecemeal 
to the child. Even the teacher in many cases would be hindered 
rather than helped were she invariably to think of faults according 
to this very detailed scheme. Some faults are very often bound up 
with each other, so that the presence of one is quite likely to be 
accompanied by the presence of others. This is true of the three 
faults "Hemming stitches too long," "Hemming stitches of wrong 
slant," and "Hemming stitches too tight." The combination of 
these three faults produces the effect of an overhanding stitch 
having been made over the fold of the hem. Many teachers think 
of this as of one fault, and so deal with it in their teaching. This 
procedure is undoubtedly wiser in most cases than a more analytical 
treatment would be. On the other hand, it is quite conceivable, 
and often is actually the case, that one of these faults may be present 



Faults in Sewing 6i 

in some girl's sewing without the accompaniment of the other two. 
In such a case the teacher should be able to exactly state to herself 
wherein this child's trouble consists. To do so implies that she 
make or use an analysis. Good teaching must in the future, as it 
has in the past, depend largely upon a knowledge on the teacher's 
part of when an analysis of the process she is pursuing will help her 
pupil, and when it will not help. Good teaching will also depend, 
as it has in the past, upon the ability of the teacher to guide the 
pupil to the making of such analysis when it is felt that it would be 
an aid. A knowledge of general methods of teaching will help the 
sewing teacher in these two essentials. She also will be helped in 
both of them, if in her own mind the processes can be thought of 
both synthetically and analytically. 

That teachers of sewing often do not think analytically of the 
faults of children's sewing, and that such an analysis as is given in 
Table X will really often aid in clarifying their own, and therefore 
their pupils' minds, as to the exact bond which the pupils should try 
to form, will be best appreciated by a comparison of Table IX, 
which is a compilation of the opinions about faults of supervisors 
and teachers of sewing, with our analysis given in Table X. To tell 
a child that her "stitching is careless," that she has "poorly con- 
structed joinings," that the "finish is clumsy," that she shows "lack 
of neatness" or "carelessness in putting things together," that her 
first, second, third, fourth, and fifth faults, in the order of their 
importance, are the "position of needle and thread," that "lack of 
individuality" and "harmony" characterize her work, and that she 
"has the inability to learn certain stitches" would not, to any great 
extent, identify for her the bond which she was to form. In Table 
VIII are given the factors which eleven judges stated as influencing 
them in their judgments concerning the sewing samplers. One judge, 
a specialist in the teaching of sewing, mentions the "quality" of the 
stitch. If such an unanalyzed statement were made to a child, 
would it not be difficult for her to form the proper bond to bring 
about improvement in this matter, and would it not aid her in so 
doing if she were told that instead of having poor "quality" her 
stitches were pulled too tight, or were too loose, or were uneven, or 
whatever the fault might be? 

(4) "To be more satisfied at the right bond, and more unready to 
repeat the wrong bonds." In mentioning this fourth condition of 
improvement, Thorndike recognizes the second of the important 



62 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

constituents of improvement. Improvement, as we quoted from 
him above, is not only "an addition and subtraction of bonds"; it is 
also "an addition and subtraction of satisfyingness and annoying- 
ness." To be satisfied at the right bond, however, necessitates pri- 
marily that one recognize the right bond. At least when the results, 
due to the exercise of such a bond, are definitely recognized so that 
the accruing satisfaction may be assigned to its proper source, 
improvement is thereby much facilitated. All, therefore, that was 
said under (3) about the identification of bonds has weight here 
also. This cannot alone be attended to, however, by securing even 
a perfect analysis. Conditions (4), (5), and (6) all involve this im- 
portant element of adding and subtracting satisfyingness and an- 
noyingness; (4) has just been quoted; (5) is "to be more satisfied 
by the general exercise of the function," and (6) "to be more satis- 
fied by general improvement in it." To like to sew better than one 
used to, and to be more annoyed when sewing is interfered with or 
prevented, is thus one element of improvement in sewing (5). To 
want to improve one's sewing ability so that one takes real satisfac- 
tion in any improvement which does occur, and feels annoyed by 
lack of such improvement, is also itself an element of improvement 
in the general ability of sewing (6). Such desire and satisfaction we 
may hope will be largely stimulated if pupils themselves use our 
sewing scale, and watch and record their own improvement in terms 
of this objective measure. To feel satisfied when some special con- 
tributing bond is exercised, also means improvement to the general 
ability in question. This is what is meant by (4) above. For 
instance, for a child to recognize that her stitches in backstitch 
are being pulled now with a proper tension so that they no longer 
will be so loose that a pin could easily be inserted under them, as 
was formerly the case, and for her to feel satisfied by the perform- 
ance of this action which will result in making her stitch look right, 
or, in other words, at thus exercising the right bond, is an instance 
of improvement due to the attaching of satisfaction to the right 
bond. The teacher may, in the first place, have brought this about 
through praise of the proper stitch, or the child herself may have 
discovered it by inspection of desirable scale or other models. Satis- 
faction at the exercise of right bonds and annoyingness at the exercise 
of wrong ones are indeed, no matter how they have been brought 
about, important elements in the learning process of any subject. 
The actual muscular adjustments necessary to bring about correct 



Faults in Sewing 63 

performance come to have a pleasant feeling of "rightness" or of 
familiarity. For the accomplished sewer to push her needle in a 
new or awkward way is, in itself, annoying. For the child to attach 
such a feeling of annoyance to an awkward act is for her to improve 
her ability. 

In this account of improvement in sewing and of the conditions 
favorable to improvement, we have, at times, strayed somewhat far 
afield from the analysis of sewing faults. Since, however, this 
analysis was primarily made as a partial fulfillment of some of these 
conditions of improvement in sewing, it seemed justifiable to discuss 
to some extent the concept of improvement itself, and several of 
the conditions of improvement, in order that the exact place and 
purpose of our analysis might be made clear. 

THE MEASUREMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF VARIOUS FAULTS 

In order to find the intercorrelations which exist between total 
merit and the amount of each fault present in a sampler, it was 
necessary to have a certain number of our sewing samplers evalu- 
ated in terms of the amount of each fault which they possessed, and 
in terms of their amount of general merit. The number of faults 
given in the analysis (See Table X) was so great, however, that it 
was deemed impracticable to determine separately the amount of 
each one of these which was present in each sampler. A partial 
synthesis was, therefore, made from the list given in Table X. 
This synthesis was made by the author with the help of three of her 
earlier assistants. The aim was again to include all possible faults, 
in a mutually exclusive list, but this time to make the analysis less 
detailed. Table XI shows this new less-detailed analysis. The 
twenty-three faults there mentioned were now to be used as the 
basis for evaluating certain of our sewing samplers. 

Sixty-four samplers were chosen from among the 854 which were 
originally judged by twelve individuals. The sixty-four were so 
chosen that sixteen equal steps of merit were represented, each by 
four samplers, according to the average of the twelve judgments 
which had earlier been passed upon them. Neither extreme of the 
original distribution of 854 samplers was represented, the range of 
the sixty-four samplers being from two and three-fours to nine and 
one-half, in terms of the original ten, eleven, or twelve piles into 
which all the samplers were first sorted. These sixty-four samplers 
thus fairly well represent all the grades of work which would ordi- 



64 The Measurement of Certain Elements oj Hand Sewing 

Table XI. A less detailed analysis of the faults which are possible in the 
sampler described in Section j 

1. Stitches and spaces too large 

2. Unevenness in size: Includes 

1. Stitches uneven in size 

2. Spaces uneven in size 

3. Disproportion between size of stitches and size of spaces 

3. Line of sewing crooked or not parallel with edge of material 

4. Stitches drawn too tight 

5. Stitches not drawn tight enough 

6. Slant of stitches incorrect 

7. Stitches not parallel in slant with one another 

8. Knots and fastenings large, badly made, and conspicuous 

9. Knots and fastenings insecure or absent 

10. Edges of seam unevenly joined 

11. Seam or hem too large 

12. Seam or hem too small 

13. Basting at wrong distance from edge of hem or seam 

14. Hem badly turned in: Includes 

a. Unevenness of first turning 

b. Absence of first turning 

c. First turning too large 

d. Second turning uneven 

15. Stitches unsuited for purpose for which intended 

16. Threads left hanging. Broken and soiled thread and double thread 

used 

17. Bad arrangement of stitches on samples 

18. Wrinkled material 

19. Soiled material 

20. Edges not trimmed 

21. Extra materiaf caught in under sewing 

22. Evidence of ripping and threads of material pulled 

23. Individual stitches in back stitching or in combination stitches are 

crooked 



narily be found in any schoolroom, the extremes of our 854 sam- 
plers, as the reader remembers, having been produced mainly at 
one end by college students specializing in household arts, and at 
the other end by children in special classes for defectives, most of 
whom had had little or no training in sewing. 



Faults in Sewing 65 

Each of these sixty-four samplers was judged in reference to 
the amount it possessed of each of the twenty-three faults given in 
Table XI. At least sixteen judgments made by as many individ- 
uals were passed upon each fault in each sampler. Most of this 
judging was done by women in college classes in psychology. Each 
student was given a sheet with the identification numbers of the 
samplers upon it and blank places in which were to be written the 
student's name, class, and the name and identification number of 
the fault upon which judgment was being made. The name of one 
fault was then given to each student with the direction that judg- 
ments were to be made upon this fault only. The names of other 
faults were read so that the students would see that other aspects 
were to be cared for by other judgments. Whether or not other 
elements besides the particular fault under consideration entered in 
to influence the judgments it is impossible to say. All who took 
part in the experiment seemed to be interested and anxious to 
follow the directions, and many reported that it was not at all diffi- 
cult for them to abstract the element in question and to be influ- 
enced by that alone. If the presence of other features did cause 
some constant error, it is again impossible to say in which direction 
this error would lie. It is conceivable that a sampler lacking merit 
in other respects might be placed lower than it should be in one 
special fault, due to the suggestions caused by the presence of other 
faults. It is also conceivable that a sampler excellent in other 
respects might be marked lower than it should be in some faults, 
because of the contrast represented by that fault with other merits. 

The specific directions for scoring for faults were as follows: 

The worst score which could be given for any fault was 5; the 
best score (which meant a total absence of the fault) was o. Inter- 
mediate scores of i, 2, 3, and 4 were to be given according to the 
amount of the fault present. 

Preparatory to passing judgments the classes were shown sam- 
plers of the worst total merit, to give them some idea of the greatest 
amount of the faults which they might expect to find. They were 
told, however, that the list of faults had been prepared to cover all 
the possible faults which might be present, and that it was quite 
possible that some of them were not actually present in any of these 
sixty-four samplers, or were present in only a slight degree. They 
did not, therefore, feel obliged to give a score of 5 or 4, or possibly 
even of i to any sampler when scoring for certain faults. 



66 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

Before judging, certain of the faults were explained in more detail. 
These certain faults were said to have meanings as follows: 

Fault JO. "Edges of seams unevenly joined" referred to the edges of the 
material to be put together in making the seam. 

Faults II and 12. Seam or hem "too large" and "too small," respectively, 
meant too large or small in respect to the rest of the sampler and the 
strength of the material. 

Fault 15. "Stitches unsuited to purpose for which intended" meant that 
the proper kind of stitch should be used for various purposes, hemming stitch 
upon the hem, etc., and the presence of this fault indicated that the wrong 
kind of stitch had been used. 

Fault 17. "Bad arrangement of stitches on sampler" indicated that the 
esthetic effect of spacing was bad. 

Fault 20. "Edges not trimmed" referred to the raw edges of the whole 
sampler. 

Fault 21. "Extra material caught in under sewing" meant that some part 
of the material which should not be sewed was caught in with the stitches. 
(This is a fault which is found more often in machine than in hand sewing.) 

Fault 22. "Evidence of ripping and threads of material pulled" referred to 
marks left on the material from stitches which had been ripped out and 
unevenness of the material due to having caught or pulled one of the threads, 
as is sometimes done through the use of a blunt needle. 

Attention was called to the distinction between faults 3 and 23, one referring 
to the crookedness of the line of stitches, the other to the crookedness of the 
individual stitch in backstitching and combination stitch. In running stitch all 
unevenness was to be attributed to line of sewing being crooked, it being impossible 
in connection with this stitch to draw the distinction between crooked line and 
crooked stitch except in this arbitrary way. 

Fault 6. "Slant of stitches incorrect" was said to refer to hemming and over- 
casting stitches in which the slant might be at the wrong angle or in the wrong 
direction (as is the case when one hems "backwards"). This fault was distin- 
guished from Fault 7, which referred not to faultiness of the general slant but to 
differences in the slants of adjacent stitches. 

Besides these directions the students before judging w^ere given 
a chance to ask questions about the fault for which they were to 
judge, and any student who felt especially incompetent to judge for 
the fault assigned was allowed to change with some one who did feel 
competent to make such judgment. The sixty-four samplers were 
then rotated around the class, each being given a score by each 
student. When all were scored, the names of faults were inter- 
changed, and the samplers again rotated, each student now judging 
the samplers for a different fault. 



Faults in Sewing 67 

When from sixteen to twenty judgments had been passed upon 
each sampler for each fault, the average of all the sixteen to twenty 
judgments was found, and served as the score for each sampler in 
each fault. Table XII shows the amount of each fault possessed by 
each sampler, the average amount of the twenty-three faults pos- 
sessed by each, the number of faults possessed by each (found by 
arbitrarily calling a fault present only when there is enough of it 
to have given it an average score of at least i . o, in the opinion of 
the sixteen to twenty individuals who judged it) and the value of 
the sampler in terms of general merit. This latter was found by 
having six judges score each sampler in terms of the scale, described 
in Section 3, and using as a final score the average of the six judg- 
ments. In scoring for faults a low mark means little of that fault. In 
scoring for general merit, a high mark means much general merit. 
We expect, therefore, to find a negative correlation indicated be- 
tween general merit and each individual fault. 

From Table XII one is able to construct for each sampler a men- 
tal image of the amount of sewing ability which it represents. If we 
picture to ourselves, as suggested earlier in this section, improve- 
ment as being the sum total of advancement along a number of 
horizontal lines — each one of which symbolizes some element of a 
complex ability — we can in this case make, for each sampler, a 
snapshot of the degree of perfection which has already been attained 
in each of the twenty-three constituents of sewing ability. Sampler 
No. 336 has thus i .' i units of the way to go from 5 — o (the extreme 
limits possible according to our scoring method) before total absence 
of Fault I will be attained. Fault 2 is more nearly conquered, .38 
of a unit of improvement only being required before perfection in 
that line will be reached. In Fault 3, .25 of a unit only is required; 
in Fault 4, .26. Fault 5 is already completely overcome (its score 
being o). Fault 6 shows . 75 of a unit yet to be attained, and so on 
through the list. If we turn our attention to the other end of the 
table, where are placed the samplers originally judged to be low in 
general merit by the first twelve judges of all samplers, and examine 
sampler No. 443 in detail, we find that the amounts of all but one of 
the constituent faults are greater than they were for sampler No. 
336. The exception is in Fault 11, "Seam or hem too large." 



68 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



t3 



8 



•a 






to 



X 
w 

CQ 
< 



aiBDg sm Xq paSpnt 




in 

0. 00 


m 


m 

N vO 00 


m 


>o 





■* '^. 


m 

M 





m 


m 




0. 



m m 

>-. ro M 

M 0> 


si[nBjj JO jaquin^vj 


t^ 


r<5 lo 





vO ^ 





00 


o> 


m >o 







" 


CO 


00 


P) 11 vO 

l-l M M 


sijnBj iiB JO aSBjaAv 


10 


10 vO 


in 




00 m m 

vO 00 


■o 


00 
00 


00 


i~. 


0. 


0. 


m 



00 


0. 


a ov « 


Cz jjnBj 


■* 


in >o 


r^ 


m in 't 

m 0> 




f^ 


m 


r^ M 


-0 


m 


00 


M 


in 


N o> 


zz iinBjj 






" ". 






ro 


o> 






M 


CO ro 
N m 


in 






vO 


ro 


ro ro ro 


iz :)inBj 






vO 



m 




000 






" 


^ 


n m 





m 











^ 


00 

M 


02 ;inBj 






00 t~ 






000 
00 







M 
N 





ro 
00 



m 









00 





000 

M M N 


6 1 JinBj 





l-t 10 





ro 
m N 







■* 


ro m 
to m 


00 


00 


•* 




00 


NO m m 

". "^ 9 


81 lin^d 






r^ in 




000 

00 


^ 


>o 





00 Cv 
t^ 00 












0\ 


0. 


ro 00 
ro t-- ro 

M 


ii unBj 




■* ro 


t^ 


a m 
00 fn 












m 
in rn 




>o 


00 

M 





- 



m 


ro m 00 

00 t^ 


91 ;inBj 


". 


m 
o> 




M 


" 
vO n 


I^ 


fn 
00 


a 


00 P) 



00 


m 

0. 


0. 








M 


CO 
-0 00 N 


Si 5inBi[ 


vO 




m 


rO m ro 


m 


00 
m 


00 







vO 







m 


000 
m m 


t-i unB^ 


in 


0\ ■* 
in 0. 


vO 


m IS 
m t- m 


m 


? 


r<5 
vO 








t^ 


00 

-0 


f^ 


ro 


m 00 
9 ". ". 


Ci nn^d 








m 


fO r.- 

n 00 M 





00 
00 


•* 







•* 


•* 


m 
00 


ro m 
^ t^ t^ 

M 


zi ;inBj 


ro 


00 <N 

h-t l-t 


in 


in 00 t^ 

Mum 






m 





ro 


M 


M 


-0 




m 




ro 


NO m NO 
-0 m 


II :(inBj 





Oi Oi 




r«1 


ro in n 

l> Oi 00 


00 






•* 


00 t-t 
00 t~ 


IN 





m 


10 





00 ^ ro 
00 NO ro 


01 ;inBj 


■* 


0> ro 
M IN 


". 


00 r^ 





00 


^. 


r») 
(S •* 


0\ 


•* 


■* 







MOO 
■* m 


6 ^inBj 




" 00 




w t^ in 


« 


N 


m 


00 " 


00 






m 





M 00 N 
re IN c^ 

M 


8 linej 


00 


00 


10 


00 N 
N 00 t- 



■o 

t-t 




M 


9 




vO M 






m 












000 
" t^ 


i ^IIIBJ 








r^ 


M 00 



m 






vO 


00 00 
vO CO 








^ 







000 
M 00 -"t 


9 5in^d 




a m 

1^ 


r^ 


IT) vO 




■o 





" 
I^ 


t^ 





•0 


t^ 


a 


tN] 00 

M NO I^ 


£ JinBji 






m 







m ■* 

vO CN 


a 


m 


^. 


00 01 
CO M 


00 


00 


". 


^ 


00 


in i^ ro 

0\ ro t^ 


fr JltlBJ 


01 








vO 


5- 


^. 


m 

vO 


t^ 
Tj- (N 





^ 





•<t 


Tt N 

m ro i-H m 


C JinBj 


c? 


5- M 


m 


M <N 

in vO in 




in 







o^ m 




t-t 





00 



m 


■* 



000 
t^ •* 00 


z ^m^j^ 


00 


r^ 
in r^ 


m 


rf t~ 
>o t^ t^ 

M 







M 
M 





tn 
00 M 
















m 


000 

CNl M 00 
M P) M 


I nnBj 





m N 


so 


m p» 
•* M in 





in 





M 
0, N 


C\ 





00 



10 





000 

NO •* " 

M w N 


soSpnf aApMl 
[BUI3UO O} SuipjODDE 

jaiciiuBS ajoiiM jo aniB^ 


ro 


01 ^ 

fO rn 


vO 


00 QO 0\ 

m fn ro 





•* 
•* 




55 


^ 


^ 


^ 


0. 


m 


-* ^ -"t 

m in in 


■02>j uopcoijpuapi 





t^ 00 




5 

N t^ in 
i^ -0 


m 


ro 


00 


^5 




m 


2 


M 
00 

m 


ro 


■<t in 

CJ fO NO t^ 



Faults in Sewing 69 



vO 


10 


H 


10 

Ov 




10 


in 


t^ 


\n 

Ov 


t^ 


vO 


"^ 





00 


ro 


r^ 


in 

00 


t^ 


m 


m 


m 





r^ 


m 




in 

vO 





■* 


10 

ro 


in 


m 

-0 


in 

Ov 




0\ 


a 


" 


00 


00 


Ov 


00 


00 


00 


00 


Ov 


Ov 


00 


00 


t^ 


00 


VO 


00 


t^ 


t^ 


VO 


00 


t^ 


t^ 


vO 


(^ 


vO 


VO 


VO 


VO 


m 


■* 


M 


IH 




vO 


Ov 


w 


vO 


10 





10 


vO 


vO 


t^ 


ro 


00 

IH 


00 


00 


00 


00 


00 


m 


m 


Ol 

IH 


Ov 

IH 


vO 
IH 



PI 


00 


M 
PI 


Ov 

IH 


Ol 


PI 


PI 




^ 


n 


ro 


% 


vO 




ir, 


M 


r) 


Ov 


00 


ro 





■* 


00 






m 


■v* 00 

t~ in 


p» 
in 


r^ 00 
^ vo 





t^ 


00 

Ov 


00 
00 


PO 


J; 


Ov 
Ov 


PO 


vO 




M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


)-t 


M 


IH 


M 


IH 


IH 


M 


tH 


M 


IH 


IH 


M 


IH 


IH 


IH 


PI 


M 


IH 


M 


PI 


PI 


M 


PI 


PI 




5 


r^ 





1^ 


00 

vO 


m 




o> 




m 





t^ 


Ol 


% 


Ol 
CO 


Ov 
PI 


PI 


00 
00 


VO 


00 


vO 





00 
vO 









5 


PO 
vO 


9 


PO 
00 


Ov 


PO 
PO 




N 


1-1 


(^ 


M 


r4 


p» 


M 


M 


M 


tH 


M 


IH 


N 


n 


IH 


PI 


P) 


PI 


PI 


PI 


IH 


m 


PI 


PI 


PO 


PI 


PI 


PO 


PI 


PI 


PO 






M 


5- 


ro 


r^ 


vO 




Ov 




-0 





Ov 


m 

00 


fO 


m 


00 






Ol 


Ov 
00 


VO 

q 


vO 





00 


■t 


PI 



Pt 

PI 


00 

m 


Ov 
PI 

IH 


M 


00 





IH 


m 

PI 


§ 


§ 


M 


•* 


". 


in 






vO 






•* 


N 


in 




° 









tH 


-. 


vO 



G 
PI 


■^ 
•* 


M 



q 






PO 

PI 


a 
PI 


PI 










q 


q 


m 

q 




IH 


IH 
IH 









1/1 




vO 












10 





Ov 




tH 



m 


in 


ro 


00 






Ov 

-q 


m 

vO 


m 




00 


00 
PI 

PI 


00 
vq 


vO 
IH 



m 



m 

PI 




q 
PI 


m 

M 


m 

q 

tH 


a 

ro 


:• 


r^ 
•* 









- 









00 


m 

a 


N 





00 


IH 


r^ 


Ov 


M 







IH 


m 

q 


^ 


Ol 


m 

Ol 


00 




Ol 
ro 


vO 

M 
IH 




q 


00 

PI 


5- 


PI 


m 


Ol 
IH 


m 

q 

IH 


m 

00 


vq 


Ov 

IH 




M 






S 






10 




Ol 









00 



vO 




00 



-0 



00 

IH 




Ol 




n 





00 

IH 




ro 



m 



m 


■* 











vO 



PI 


ro 
m 



PI 

ro 










m 




VO 




00 


•* 
■* 






00 
vO 


00 


s 


vO 


10 
VO 


Ov 
00 


-0 


n 


ro 
00 


00 
00 


IH 


Ol 


VO 


Ol 


IH 


m 

Ov 


H 

>o 


vO 
00 


r^ 
•* 


m 


5 


PO 


p- 


m 




■o 


m 




m 





H 






H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 




<M 


N 


H 




N 


H 


P< 


IH 


IH 


IH 


IH 


M 


tH 


PI 


PI 


PO 


IH 


ro 


PI 


ro 


ro 


PI 






10 






00 


to 




^ 


00 


10 

Ov 


\n 

a 



vO 





^ 




M 





^ 



PI 











00 


§ 



■* vO 


in 

00 



vO 




m 









00 



00 





M 




M 


ro 






N 








n 


N 


ro 


« 


IH 


ro 


PI 


IH 


p) 


IH 




PI 


IH 


f<5 




IH 


PO 


PI 


ro 


PI 


IH 


PO 



10 


o> 


>o 


"5 

00 


M 


00 


N 


(N 






N 




vO 


-0 

00 


-0 


IH 


■* 




ro 


"^ 


s? 


■<J- 00 


m 



PI 


Ov 





v8 






00 


^ 
















M 




M 


M 


M 


hi 










M 


IH 


IH 


IH 


IH 


IH 


IH 




IH 


M 


IH 


M 


IH 


IH 


IH 


PI 


PI 


PI 


r<5 


10 




M 





Ol 


Ov 





Ov 


00 


1^ 


-0 


m 


00 


ro 


Ov 


t^ 


vO 



t^ 


ro 





5 



PI 


M 




in 


? 


m 


00 


PI 


a 


m 

Ov 


PO 


Ov 
00 


H 


H 


H 


M 


M 




tM 


M 


l-t 


M 


IH 


tH 


N 


IH 


M 


N 


P) 


PI 


M 


M 


M 


PI 


PI 


PI 


IH 


PI 


PI 


M 


IH 


IH 


ro 


IH 








00 





M 







% 








M 









^ 


Ol 


% 




Ol 

IH 









0. 



PI 




vq 

IH 


00 


00 




vq 

IH 



q 

IH 


00 



PI 




IH 
PI 


M 




m 



PI 




q 




qv 




w 


rt- 


I/) 


\n 





10 









vO 


M 


00 


Ol 


VO 


f<: 


00 


PO 





00 


^ 


f^ 


m 
q 


-. 


PO 


00 
IH 


r^ 

■* 


t^ 


ro 
PO 


q 


m 



q 



ro 


M 


5- 


ro 


00 


5 


vO 

00 


in 


10 

Ov 


•0 


ro 


10 


-* 





Ov 


Ov 


00 




P) 


PO 
00 


? 


§ 


00 
m 


PI 

IH 


vO 


m 




•* 


PO 
PO 


vO 


« 


00 


vO 


m 
m 


N 




M 




N 






M 


H 


M 


N 




« 




M 


N 


ro 


P) 


H 


P< 


PI 


PI 


PO 


IH 


PI 


PO 


PI 


PI 


ro 


PI 






^ 



0. 


t~ 

















^ 


10 


Ov 

10 

t-l 


vO 


m 


IH 


m 


00 




t^ 


Ov 

00 


ro 


vq 

IH 




PO 


Ov 
00 


m 

IH 


PI 
m 

IH 


q 


§ 

IH 


m 


M 


ro 
ro 

PO 


00 

IH 


ro 
00 


ro 
PI 


ro 





00 


M 


Ov 


t^ 


Ov 


00 


00 


fO 


vO 




5 


? 


r«5 




Ov 
00 




5 


s 


m 


Ol 
PO 





Ov 




00 




PO 


PO 


Ov 

IH 





t^ 


IH 









M 


M 


M 










M 


IH 


H 


IH 


IH 


IH 


fO 


tH 


M 


PI 


IH 






M 


PI 




PI 


PO 


IH 


M 


IH 


PI 


PO 










•* vo 













•0 


^ 


Ov 










m 


^ 




IH 




IH 







m 




a 







Ov 



Ol 




IH 


^ 









^ 




Ov 



vO 



PI 




vO 



vO 


w 


M 


M 


ro 


M 


IM 


H 


M 


M 




(M 


M 


N 


M 


N 


PO 


PI 


PI 


IH 


IH 


IH 


PI 


ro 


PI 


PI 


M 


•* 


PI 


PO 


PI 


PI 


■* 


Ov 









-0 



vO 






10 












VO 




IH 




Ov 







Ov 



Ov 



vO 




Ov 







m 







00 



m 



00 














Ov 




VO 




PO 














C-1 


P) 


t-t 


M 


N 


<s 


N 


M 


t-t 


M 


IH 


M 


M 


N 


01 


tH 


N 


PI 


PI 


IH 


PI 


tH 


ro 


n 


PI 


IH 


PO 


ro 


PI 


■* 


•* 


« 





10 

Ov 


^ 


fO 

00 


^ 


m 





N 


5- 


in 
m 




m 


? 


Ol 

m 


in 

00 


m 
m 


5 





N 


m 


vO 


ro 


m 

Ov 


m 

00 





PI 


5- 


« 


m 







00 





M 


0) 


" 


M 


M 


N 


P) 


M 


N 


t-l 


>H 


IH 


N 


IH 


N 


N 


M 


p» 


PI 


PI 


w 


PI 


" 


PI 


m 


PI 


w 


ro 


ro 


PI 


PO 


't 




-0 


•5f 


00 






N 


« 


't 
« 




>o 


^ 


m 


ro 


-0 

00 


00 


-0 


IH 




IH 


vO 



m 


§ 


ro 
vq 


Ol 


Ov 
m 


vq 


m 

q 

IH 


Ov 


vO 


vO 


ro 








^. 


^ 




M 


-0 






0. 


Ov 


00 

-0 


vO 
00 


00 


0. 



p) 



fO 


00 


% 


00 


m 

00 


00 

ro 



00 



m 


m 

vq 


00 


m 








vO 






N 
PI 



m 



PI 




q 



PI 


^ 





Ov 
00 








Ov 



•0 


ro 




00 







00 




Ol 



in 




Ov 




00 














Ov 




vO 








IH 







Ov 




Ov 




PO 




00 



00 



PO 




IH 







PO 



m 




1- 




H 


M 


M 


M 


M 


M 


t-l 


IH 


IH 


IH 


tH 


N 


PI 


pt 


w 


PI 


PI 


PI 


PI 


M 


PI 


« 


ro 


IH 


PI 


PO 


ro 


PO 


PI 











Ov 













10 




ro 







Ov 
























m 









00 


^ 



m 



-0 



00 



00 























Ov 


M 


« 


« 


N 


N 


<-) 


N 


N 


N 


t-t 


N 


N 


N 


N 


fO 


PI 


p) 


p< 


n 


M 


PI 


PI 


PI 


PO 


n 


PI 


PO 


ro 


•* 


ro 


■* 


ro 


% 




Ov 


o> 



10 



•* vO 




t-l 









vO 




>o 




Ol 



00 






00 







ro 




Ol 






vO 




PO 










Ov 



PI 








Ov 



Ov 












-O 


M 


M 




M 


w 


M 


M 


M 


" 


tH 


IH 


IH 


IH 


IH 


(S 


PJ 


P< 


" 


pq 


PI 


PI 


PI 


PI 


" 


PI 


PI 


PI 


PI 


ro 


PI 


PI 


PI 



OC^C^C^ ^Tf^tTj- 0\0»OvO\ ■^^^'^f 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ ^ "^ ^ ^ 0\ 0\ O 0\ ^-^^^ 
ioioio»>^ 0000 00^0 r^t^r-t- t^i>-t^t^ 00000000 ooooQOoo 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 



lOTj-INTj- t>-aiiOt-) OOIOON 0^0■^'^ ^Tj-t^O M0000O\ rONt^(N 

(NO^wOv WOO"* TfwrtO* ^O'T rOMtsro MroOr^ fO^^"2 



70 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



o 



8 



■^ 



to 



X 

n 
< 





O O ■* 00 
^0 lO lO lO 


10 10 « 


10 10 

00 so Oi 00 
Tj- 10 Tf •* 


s^iriBj JO jsquinM 


« M M O 


n Ov w 
PI PI 11 P) 


?; ?3^ s 


S;inBJ n^ P 33BJ3AV 


Irt N O " 

n o to t 


00 t^ Oi 
PI PI PO 


r^ PO 00 ^ 
^ •* PI t^ 


« N N N 


N N PI PI 


N PI PI PI 


Cz lltlBJ 


CO 00 li^ fO 
fO M ro 0> 


t^ ^ 00 w 

t- -S- PI 


10 -0 >0 PI 

PI 11 ro 


n ^ n r^ 


ro PO fO ro 


PO •* t PO 


zz -wn-e^ 


t^ t^ l-< 00 


PI M 10 
t^ ^ t^ 


PI 10 so 
00 >o " 


« N w 


N 11 11 P< 


11 ro 


iz iinBj 


ro rj- r<5 lo 


00 00 o> 
00 >o 10 


PI so 


M N 




M 


oz iinBji 


CO O vO 0> 


M PO 

1* 00 


PI M 00 

w ro 10 


M t-I tH PO 


PI PI 11 ro 


PI PI PI M 


61 iinBj 


m N M O 


(O PI ."t fO 
."t .* t- 10 


t^ 10 ro 
■<t PI sO 00 


M M N 


P< 11 M 


11 11 H 


81 iin^d 


o o o o 


0000 

PO <t " 10 


10 
PI vO sO 


ro M (-1 P) 


PI P< 11 PI 


PO P< PO 


ii ^inBj 


m O >0 M 

00 O t~ 1-1 


SO I^ t^ 

11 M t^ r^ 


00 "t >0 11 

00 0> -0 PI 


N r») fO ■* 


PO PO PO 11 


PI PI PO PO 


91 linBJ 


N O O O 


0000 
NO t^ PO 10 


0000 

Ov 11 10 PI 


P) N N 


11 11 PO PO 


N rj- Tt PO 


Si ;inBd 


o o o o 

vO Ol 00 i- 


0000 

t^ so PI n 


0000 
10 ro 1^ 10 


W M w M 


11 p< PI PI 


PI P< M PI 


Vi 5inBj[ 


Tt ro t^ 1-1 
00 fO 't 11 


ro 00 I^ 
lO to sO M 


PI PO •* PO 


N N PO N 


11 p) PO PI 


PO r< PI ro 


Ci 5inEj 


o o o o 

lO 1-1 t^ t^ 


0000 
PI 11 0\ PI 


0000 

M Ov 00 -^t 


N 1-1 P) w 


w PI M PI 


M 11 PI PI 


zi ;inBd 


o o o o 

P< 00 ro lO 
N P< M 


00 PO sO 
11 ■* PO 


t^ 10 

^00 ro 00 

PI n 


II ?im3d 


m Tt- >o •^ 
Tl- 0\ 00 TJ- 


11 PO 11 

f^ 't 11 

PI PI PO 


so 10 M Ov 

sq Ov Ov 

fO n n 


01 ^inBj 


lO irt O fO 
00 Oi M 00 


rf 00 r^ 
00 10 


Ov " 
00 ■"t PO 10 


N M M M 


M M PI M 


11 M P) ro 


6 ?inBj 


1/5 N lO M 
O. t- in 11 


PO M PO Oi 

PO P< PO 00 


00 ro Ov Ov 
PI PI 00 PI 


M N M PO 


11 PI ro PO 


PI ro 11 PI 


8 ?inBd 


o o o o 

t~ Oi W 11 


0000 
t^ r^ PO PI 


COCO 
r^ so sO PI 


11 N M n 


PO W PO Tl- 


PO •^ ro PO 


i iltlBJ 


o o o o 

« vO Oi fO 
Tt fO P) ro 


0000 

00 HI PO 

PO ro "i- •* 


0000 
M t^ 11 so 

PO PO Tj- rt 


9 lin^d 


O n Oi 0> 


M- t PI sO 

CO so ^ " 


11 n 10 r^ 

so ■* ro 


t fo P) p< 


PO PO ro Tj- 


PO ro •* ■* 


S ^inBj 


ro lO 00 Ov 
ro Ov PI •* 


10 M .<* 00 


r< 00 00 PO 


M 11 


H M 11 H 


M 11 


■t' ;inB J 


I .90 

I .10 
3 00 
I .10 


.75 

2.10 

.93 

1.80 


0000 
-q 10 so so 


e ;inBj 


0000 

0\ 00 r^ 
fO M n PO 


0000 
PO M PI Ov 

ro t PI PI 


0000 
00 t^ lO 00 

PI PI PI PI 


z iinBj 


0000 
M ro ■* 


0000 
t^ 11 00 


0000 

vO sO PI sO 


^ fO fO fO 


PO PO ro Tt 


ro ro ■* •* 


I ^inBj 


0000 
ro a 


0000 
PO Ov Ov 


0000 
10 Ov 10 so 


p) ro PI PI 


ro PI PO PI 


PI PI M PI 


saSpnf 3AI3M; 

[EUlSUO O} SliipjODOB 

jaiduiBS sjoqAv j6 3niBy\ 


00 Ov 0> 
Oi Ov 0. 


t Tt Tl- Tj- 

0000 


Ov Ov Ov 0. 
0000 


•0^ uojiBoypuspi 


.* Ch t- 10 
^ 10 rt .* 

•<r PI P) 


PI PI to t 
^ so vO 


t- 00 10 PO 

n m t~ rj- 

M M N 4 



Faults in Sewing 7 1 

The above comparison well illustrates two general principles worth 
considering, and suggests a third. One is the fact that on the whole 
correlation, rather than compensation, is the rule between the various 
constituents of total ability in sewing. Even when, as here, these 
constituents are mutually exclusive, it generally is the case that 
improvement in one of them is accompanied by improvement in 
the other, and that individuals possessing more merit in one element 
possess also more merit in the other. The cause of this correlation 
will be more fully discussed later. It is due to the presence of com- 
mon elements which make for success in any constituent into which 
they enter. The importance of knowledge of this general correla- 
tion lies, for one thing, in the fact that we must recognize that to a 
certain extent good sewers are born and not made. Individual dif- 
ferences in capacity evidently exist here as in other fields. The 
wise teacher will recognize and allow for their existence. Teachers 
also should expect that in general, when improvement takes place, it 
should do so in all the elements which together make up sewing 
ability. 

The second principle, illustrated by the scores of samplers 336 
and 443, is also of importance. It is that positive correlation be- 
tween constituent abilities, although the rule, is not by any means 
always i . 00. This is another way of saying that they are not 
illustrated in every case. This is shown above. Samplers 336 and 
443, which were respectively judged as the best and as among the 
four worst of all the sixty- four samplers, when judged for general 
merit by the twelve original judges overlapped in their amounts of 
one element of sewing ability, sampler 336 having more of the fault 
"Seam or hem too large" than sampler 443. This fact, of occasional 
exception in individual cases to the general rule of correlation be- 
tween the elements, brings up once again that which we sought to 
emphasize in the preceding section — that a careful analysis is neces- 
sary, and that each pupil's work individually should be thought of 
as made up of such and such amounts of ability along each of 
many contributing lines. Only through such analytic study will 
the diagnosis of the needs of each individual child be properly 
made. 

A third principle, concerning the correlations between constituent 
elements of sewing ability, is that an equal amount of such corre- 
lation between each one of these constituents, as they are repre- 



T2 



The Measureme7it of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



Table XIII. Table of distribution of amounts of various faults found in 64 samples. The 25 
percentiles, medians and 75 percentiles indicaledby connectinglines. Data from Table XI I 



1 


^ 


^ 


J 


,. 


s 


S 


^ 


J 


s 





~z 


s 


s 


s 


5 


S 


S 


s 


J 


J 


_s 


~I^ 


o~ 




s 


i 


i 


!S 


•i 


i 


J 


i 


1 


c 


i 


1 


i 


i 


i 


1= ■£ 


£ 


loC 


Ic- 


lo 


-K 






1^ 


c 


II 


3 w 


?1 


ir 

?3 


ll 


?1 


ll 


3 4^ 

g-5 


3 ^ 

11 


3 _ 
?1 


s - 
ll 


S - 

ll 


3 M 


ll 


3 w 


3 *- 

g-5 


3 „ 


ll 


ll 


«; ^ 


ll 


ll 


H 


If 


< 




L1.U. 


it Li. 


uIli. 


U.U. 


ItZ 


U.U. 


iu. 


uiu. 


iZu. 


U.U. 


U.U. 


U.U. 


U.CI. 


in. 


liu. 


uu. 




U.U. 


LL.U. 




diu. 


liu. 


is 


.0 
.1 






I 


3 

I 


5 

I 








2 






2 

II 








I 










t 


3 






.2 


I 


I 


2 


5 


8 


I 




I 


I 


4 




*^ 


I 






I 






2 




A 


V 






•3 








5 


I 


I 




2 


4 












6 


2 


3 


I 


3 




d 


fe 


1 




■4 
•5 


I 

3 


I 


2 
4 


r 


2 


2 


I 


2 


7 
3 


3 
5; 


'1 


5 

I 


2 


3 
/5\ 


t 
I 


3 
3 


I 
I 


4 
4 




P 


i 


2 


2 


.6 




3 


3 


4y 


/^\ 


I 






I 


I 


3/ 


% 


\2 


4 




2 


2 


/9 


1 


.'4' 


h 


2 


5 


•7 
.8 
■9 
l.o 
i.i 


3 

3 

4 


3 
3 


/I 


4/ 


4' 
2 

4 

'1 


5 

i 


4 
1 
3 


I 

2 
I 

6/ 


4 

1 

'4 
2 . 


6 


i 

6 
I 
I 


i! 


4 
I 2 

r 


3 

3 


4 

2 


2 
3 


> 

4 

I 


2 

2 1 
\4/ 

4 


'4 

2\ 


2 1 
1 


ii 

i 

1 2 


i 
1 


1 
1' 


2 

i 

/4 


1.2 
•■3 


3 > 


2 


'2 
I 


G5 
1^ 


3I 
i 


3 


2 ^ 


1/ 


f 


2^ 

2 


\i 


I 




3 

2 


/^ 


2 


3 


2 
3 


61 




I 


2! 
■1 


'i 


4 

4 


14 


3 




2 


i 


4! 


4 


I 


3 


h 


I 


® 




6 1 


^' 


2 


i' 




i 


?^ 


<3 




1 1 
1 


1 


1-5 


I 


I 


!■ 


M 


4 


I 


3/3 


2 






1' 


w 


I 


V 


3 


^ 


M 


' 




1 


3 


i^ 


1.6 


3 




■ 


i' 


1 

1 


2 


4 


V 


I 


§ 


', 




b 


© 


2 


b. 


v^ 


^2 


/ 


Vi 




i 


2 


r 


1-7 


2 


2 


i 


1 








i/ 


2 


1 




i^ 


2 


g 


3 


^ 


2 


"^ 


V 




2I 


4 




1.8 


I 


I 


P 


2 


I ' 


2 


3 


P 




M 


^J 


I 


1 


2 


2 


4 


4 


' 3 


S 




2 


I 


r, 


«-9 
2.0 
2.1 
2.2 


I 

1 


2 

3 


2 r 


3 

I 
I 


2 




3 


'2 

3 

3 

1 


(S 

,'2 


3 


1 

5> 
11 


I 
2 


4 
3 


4 


1 
3 

I 


I 

2 

1 3 


4 
I 
t 


/ 
II 


I 
I 
2 




2 


I 
I 


I 




2-3 


4 


w 


3i 


1 




u 


r 


1 


/3 


I 


© 


I 




2 


I 


\^ 


I 


^ 




(S 


I 




1' 


24 


1 


® 


1 


1 




1^ 


1 


2 




2 


3 


2 


1 


2 


I 


1' 


I 


(£) 


I 








h 


3 


2-5 

2.6 


I 


5 
2 


2 


I 




1 

r 


4 
I 


2 
'1 


1 


2 


2 




I 


3 


2 
I 


1 


-0 


'6 
2 


I 








i;/ 


1 

3 


2-7 
2.8 


i'. 

1 J 






£ 


I 


/ 


I 


I 


2 


I 


1 

I 


2 


' 


r 


2 


I 








1 


S' 


1 


3.9 


6 


2 






& 


■€> 


4> 
















2 


2 


I 










(2) 




30 


? 


v/ 


1 


I 




1 










1 












3 


I 










2 




31 


1 


(4) 


2 






I 


4 


3 


1 


I 


2 




























32 












I 




> 


I 




2 






I 




2 


4 


3 








1 


I 




33 


I 


1 


2 








2 


I 


2 


2 








> 




I 


I 


I 










5 




34 




1 








2 
















' 




2 














3 




35 












I 








I 


I 






' 




2 


















3-6 




2 








2 


2 


3 
















2 


' 












I 




3-7 




2 


1 








1 


2 


I 




I 






I 




1 


' 






I 










3-8 




3 


I 






2 


J 


















I 


1 












I 




3-9 




1 


I 












2 




















I 








I 




4.0 




3 








3 


2 
































• 




4« 




1 


1 






I 


2 


















I 


1 
















4.3 




I 










I 


1 






























I 




4-3 












I 


> 




































44 
















1 


































4-5 
































' 


















4.6 




1 












2 


































N 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


64 


M 


1-9 


24 


1.8 


•7 


■5 


1-9 


2.0 


1.8 


1.2 


1.0 


1.4 


•3 


1.2 


1.6 


I.I 


1.6 


17 


"■5 


I.O 


1.8 


.1 


.6 


2.2 


>-5 





■65 


.8 


.8 


4 


•35 


•9 


•9 


.8 


.65 


45 


75 


.2 


■55 


.6 


.6 


.85 


•95 


■7 


4' 


45 


IS 


■35 


■75 


■SS 



N =Siims 



(M=Midpt.) 



75 percentile — 25 percentile 



Faults in Sewing 73 

sented by our list of twenty-three faults, and general merit in 
sewing, is by no means found. Inspection of Table XII suggests 
this. Just what the difTerence actually is will be shown in Table 
XIV, and its importance will be discussed in that connection. 

Table XIII gives the frequencies for the amounts of each fault, 
arranged to show the medians and the 25 and 75 percentiles of each. 
These medians and quartiles are given at the bottom of the table. 
The facts brought out by this table should be studied by every 
teacher of elementary sewing. At a glance she may know what 
faults have the median frequency at some relatively large amount, 
thus indicating that they are overcome with difficulty and are likely 
to be present to a considerable amount in most children's sewing. 
Fault 2, "Unevenness in size of stitches and spaces and disproportion 
between size of stitches and spaces" is one such fault, evidently hard 
to overcome. Another is Fault 23, "Individual stitches in back- 
stitching and combination stitch are crooked." Thus by knowing 
the faults which are ordinarily present in the greatest amounts in 
children's sewing, teachers may prepare themselves in advance to 
combat these difficulties. By knowing the order of amounts of each 
fault which is ordinarily present in children's sewing, the teacher 
may know how to diagnose any individual irregularity. That sewing 
teachers do not already know these facts concerning the relative 
amounts of faults found in children's sewing may be seen by com- 
paring Table IX, in which their opinions on this subject are given, 
with Table XIII, in which are given the obtained measures of the 
amounts of faults actually found in sixty-four samplers. These 
samplers were selected to represent a wide range in general merit, 
but in a random manner so far as comparative amounts of faults 
were concerned. 

It was next desired to find the correlation which exists between 
each fault and general merit of the samplers. 

The reader is warned here that when these correlations are found 
they will not in any instance represent the amount of causative in- 
fluence which the presence or absence of any special fault has upon 
general merit. To believe such to be the case would be to ignore 
the fact that all sewing ability is probably positively correlated, and 
that one reason why general merit has a high correlation with the 



74 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

absence of any fault is because both general merit in sewing and 
absence of that particular fault in sewing are each somewhat de- 
pendent upon other causes which influence them both. The method 
of Partial Coefficients has been designed to eliminate the effect of 
these extraneous influences. It has not been made use of here be- 
cause the additional information it would give would seem hardly 
to justify the labor required to make the necessary computations. 
It is desirable, however, that the reader understand the method 
and the use to which it might be put, in order that he may not 
confuse the correlations which actually were found in this study of 
faults in sewing with those which might be found by the use of the 
method of Partial Coefficients. This method will be found worked 
out in Section V. The simple theory underlying it is well illus- 
trated from another field. I shall quote here from a recent research ^^ 
in which the problem is illustrated and the method of Partial Co- 
efficients explained : 

These results raise the important question of what the true relationship 
between algebraic ability and geometrical ability is, when these are freed 
from this common factor, verbal ability. How far is the correlation between 
algebraic and geometrical ability due to the correlation which exists between 
each of these and the abilities measured by the tests of what we have called 
verbal ability and to what extent is it independent of the latter? 

To find an answer to this, recourse was had to the method of Partial 
Coefficients of correlation, by which the relationship between two functions 
for a constant value of a third can be determined. 

The formula used was the following: " 

r 12 — r 13 r 23 
r 12.3: 



V (1—^21.3) (1—^22.3) 

in which r 12 .3 indicates the correlation between traits i and 2, for a constant 
value of trait 3. The reasoning underlying the Partial Correlation formula 
for three variables can be simply illustrated. Suppose that of the sixty-one 
Horace Mann students examined, ten are of approximately equal capacity 
in the verbal ability tests. The achievements in algebra and geometry of 
this group, in which verbal ability is constant, are then correlated. The 
resulting coefficient gives the partial correlation of algebraic and geometrical 

1* Rogers, A. L., Tests of Mathematical Abilities and Their Prognostic Value, 1918, 
pp. 81-82. 

" Yule, G. Udny, An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, Chap. 12. 



Faults in Sewing 75 

abilities for a constant value of ability; that is, it expresses the relation of 
ability in algebra to ability in geometry independent of language ability; or, 
in other words, it represents the extent to which these abilities are related 
apart from their common connection with the ability to deal with words. 

Dr. Rogers goes on to show how the method of Partial Coefficients 
may be applied to eliminate the effect of age as a second dependent 
variable. The method is theoretically applicable to the elimination 
of any number of extraneous factors. Its actual application, how- 
ever, is extremely arduous when the number of factors to be elimi- 
nated is great. In our own case many such eliminations would need 
to be made before we could measure the exact effect upon general 
merit of any fault in any given amount. Here again ability to 
follow verbal directions and age are both common factors; so also 
are the abilities to stick to the task, to thread and manage the 
needle, and to control the handling of the material and the tension 
of the thread. To find articles produced under conditions in which 
these facts and countless other contributing features of ability in 
sewing were all constant, except for what we have called general 
merit in sewing and some one particular fault which we desired to 
correlate with general merit, would as the reader readily sees, re- 
quire the collection of billions of sewing samplers. To make the 
elimination by the use of formulae, without actually having the 
required samplers, would take much more time and sagacity in 
estimating the cooperating factors than the author has at her com- 
mand. Again, then, we return to our original intention of finding 
the correlation which actually does exist between amount of each 
fault and general merit in sewing. We are aware that these cor- 
relations indicate no causative connection. They do, however, fur- 
nish important knowledge of how symptomatic any particular fault 
is of general merit, and for this reason a knowledge of these cor- 
relations will be found to be of great practical importance to teachers 
of sewing. With change of teaching methods it is quite conceivable 
that many of these correlations will change. With the present 
methods, however, as represented by the various schools in which 
these samplers were produced, these correlations hold, and when 
the twenty-three correlations between each fault and general merit 
are found, they may be used as indicating how significant any par- 
ticular fault is as a symptom of general merit. 

In order to find the real coefficient for this correlation of each 
fault with general merit, if the actual measures to be scored could be 



76 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

freed from chance inaccuracies, we used the formula suggested by 
Spearman : ^^ 



^ (rpi Qi) (r pi gi) 

rpq= 

^ {r pi P2) {r qi qz) 

in which r p q equals the desired real coefificient of correlation, 
r pi 52 equals an actual coefficient of correlation found by pairing 
one chance measure of the first fact with one chance measure of the 
second fact, r pz 51 equals an actual coefficient of correlation found 
by pairing one other chance measure of the first fact with an addi- 
tional chance measure of the second fact and r pi p2 and r qi q^ 
equal coefficients of correlation between the two pairs of measures 
for each of the two facts to be correlated. Table XIV shows the 
various correlations found. The faults are arranged in order 
according to the amount of the p q correlation found. As we should 
expect, the correlation between amount of general merit and 
amount of each fault is negative; the amount of their importance, 
however, as symptoms of general merit, varies greatly. As we see, 
this variation is from an inverse correlation between Fault 2 and 
general merit of .94 to a similar correlation between Fault 20 and 
general merit of only . 19. 

This table makes prominent, to some extent, the same faults that 
Table XIII did, while both tables show some others as being very 
low in importance. Fault 2, "Unevenness in size of stitches and 
spaces," is seen to be most important as a symptom of general merit 
just as we found that the median amount of it which is present was 
greater than for any other fault. This fault is evidently the hardest 
fault to overcome, and at the same time the one whose elimination 
probably contributes much to general merit in sewing. So Fault 12, 
"Seam or hem too small," is given a very unimportant place in both 

2" Of course, as stated above, the selection of these sixty-four samplers was such as 
to bring about a rather unusual distribution of them when rated for general merit. 
The distributions of each fault, however, and of general merit also when this was 
estimated by six judges with the use of the scale (which measure was used in calcu- 
lating our coefficients of correlation) were all approximately of the "normal type." 

^ X y 
The formula which we used for obtaining the correlations, r = — = — ^^.is therefore ap- 

plicable. In any case, we used the same method for all the twenty-three faults, and 
our conclusions refer mainly to the relative differences between these. 



Faults in Sewing 



n 



tables, that is, it is shown by Table XIV to have little effect as a 
symptom of general merit inversely correlating with it only to the 
extent of .47, and by Table XIII it is shown to be present in only 
very small amounts. 



Table XIV. Coefficients of correlation found between general merit for 
the whole sampler and each of twenty-three faults 

p\ = general merit as judged by three judges 

p2 = general merit as judged by three other judges 

qi = amount of each fault as judged by eight judges 

52 = amount of each fault as judged by eight other judges 



No. 

of 

Fault 


Name of fault to be correlated with 
general merit 


rpipi 


rqiq2 


rpiQ2 


rp2qi 


rPq* 


2 


Unevenness in size 


.967 


.921 


-.907 


-.877 


-•945 


I 


Stitches and spaces too large 


.967 


•775 


-.851 


-•774 


-•937 


6 


Incorrect slant 


.967 


.909 


-.822 


-.896 


-•915 


15 


Unsuited for purpose intended 


.967 


•795 


-•705 


-•903 


- ^91 


3 


Line crooked and not parallel with 














edge of material 


.967 


.811 


-•832 


-•756 


-•895 


7 


Stitches not parallel in slant with one 














another 


.967 


•944 


-.871 


-.836 


-•893 


23 


Individual stitch in backstitch and 














combination crooked 


.967 


•943 


-.806 


-.874 


-.879 


14 


Hem badly turned in 


.967 


.892 


-.761 


-.818 


-.849 


17 


Bad arrangement, etc. 


.967 


.917 


-•750 


-.803 


-.824 


18 


Wrinkled material 


.967 


.836 


-•747 


-.618 


-•755 


16 


Threads hanging, broken, etc., and 














soiled thread 


.967 


.760 


— .601 


-•693 


-•752 


10 


Edges of seam unevenly joined 


.967 


• 858 


-.694 


— .670 


-•749 


4 


Stitches too tight 


.967 


•895 


-.698 


-.689 


-•745 


8 


Knots and fastenings, large, etc. 


.967 


.904 


-.698 


-•695 


-•745 


5 


Stitches not tight enough 


.967 


.818 


-.663 


-•633 


-.728 


22 


Evidence of ripping and threads pulled 


.967 


.907 


-.658 


-.689 


-.719 


13 


Basting at wrong distance from edge of 














hem, etc. 


.967 


.726 


-•571 


— .614 


— .706 


21 


Extra material caught in sewing 


.967 


.629 


-•557 


-•325 


-•545 


19 


Soiled material 


.967 


.792 


-•438 


-.518 


-•544 


12 


Seam or hem too small 


.967 


.872 


-•392 


-.472 


-.468 


II 


Seam or hem too large 


.967 


.709 


-•439 


-•273 


-.418 


9 


Knots and fastenings insecure or absent 


.967 


.869 


-.312 


-.272 


-•318 


20 


Edges not trimmed 


.967 


.784 


-.286 


— .101 


-•195 



* It is a recognized custom among statisticians in correcting for attenuation of minus correla- 
tions to disregard tiie exact working of the formula which would make all our correlations plus 
instead of minus. 



78 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

On the other hand, Fault 15, "Stitches unsuited for purpose for 
which intended," is of rather great importance as a symptom of 
general merit (having an inverse correlation with it of .91), but it 
is not of very frequent occurrence, at least in large amounts, its 
median frequency for amount being only i.i. Fault 4, "Stitches 
too tight," is another fault which happens very seldom — its median 
amount being only .7, but which still has a comparatively large 
amount of significance for general merit inversely correlating with 
that to an amount of . 74. 

Some other faults show an opposite tendency to these. Instead 
of occurring usually in only small amounts, but in spite of this, 
having a fairly large importance as symptoms of general merit, these 
faults to be mentioned occur in fairly large amounts, but have a 
comparatively small significance for general merit. Fault 23, "In- 
dividual stitches in backstitching and combination are crooked," is 
one of these. This fault has a median amount of 2 .2, showing it to 
be greater in amount than any but one other fault; six other faults, 
however, have higher inverse correlations with general merit. Fault 
23 having one of .89. Fault 11, "Seam or hem too large," Fault 9, 
"Knots of fastenings insecure or absent," and Fault 20, "Edges not 
trimmed," all are examples of faults which signify little as to general 
merit, having with it inverse correlation of only .42, .32, and .19 
respectively, and yet their median amounts are about or greater 
than the average, being 1.4, 1.2, and 1.8 respectively. "Edges not 
trimmed," especially, is evidently not much of a fault, since in spite 
of its frequent appearance its negative correlation with general 
merit is only . 19. Further inspection and comparison of Tables 
XIV and XV (until some better measures are at hand) should be 
made by every person engaged in the work of giving or supervising 
sewing instruction. Only by some such objective measure of the 
facts concerning sewing faults can the teacher know of their relative 
prominence and significance for general merit. 

Table XV shows the coefficients of correlation between general 
merit, average amount of all faults, and number of faults, also the 
coefficient of correlation found between the correlations gi q^ and 
the correlations ^ g as given in Table XIV. The high inverse cor- 
relation between general merit and the average of all faults — .94 — 
indicates that we have probably included all salient features in our 
analysis, and that the relative importance of them is such that a 



Faults in Sewing 79 

balance is fairly well secured when they are equally weighted. Only 
by the very elaborate method of "the regression equation" would it 
be possible to weight accurately every fault so that the correlation 
between average amount of faults and general merit would be an 
inverse correlation of i.oo. This, of course, would happen only if 
we actually included all faults, as we attempted to, and that in a 
mutually exclusive list. 

Table XV. Coefficients of correlation found between general merit, average 

amount of all faults, and number of faults, also between 

rq 1 52 and rpq of Table XIV 

Correlation between general merit and average of all faults, —.942 ± .0095 (P. E.) 

Correlation between general merit and number of faults, —.924 ±.01 23 (P. E.) 
Correlation between average of all faults and number 

of faults, -.9o8±.oi48(P. E.) 

Correlation between rqiq2 and rpq, —.891 ±.029 (P. E.) 



The correlation of number of faults with general merit, and with 
average of all faults, has little meaning, since our definition of i. as 
the average amount of a fault which is necessary in order that it be 
called present, is, of course, arbitrary. It was at first hoped that 
the number of faults actually found could be compared with the 
opinions of the thirty-six sewing teachers given in Table IX as to 
which fault is most frequent in children's sewing. Such a comparison 
cannot be made; we do not know at what average amount of a 
fault to say that it begins to exist. If we take the logical position, 
and say that it begins at immediately above zero, we shall have to 
say (judging from Table XIII) that all but six faults are present in 
all the sixty-four samplers. But our arbitrary decision to call a 
fault present when it has an average amount of i. seems to be fairly 
justified by the fact that by the use of this measure the number of 
faults correlates inversely with general merit to the amount of .92. 
However, since this is no certain proof that our arbitrary decision 
has merit, the attempt to compare the most frequently occurring 
faults with those which in the opinion of sewing teachers were 
thought to be most frequent has been abandoned. Anyone caring 
to make this comparison may do so with the aid of the data in 
Tables IX and XII. 

The correlations between qi and 52 given opposite particular faults 
in Table XIV can be thought of as measures of the reliability of 



8o The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

judges in evaluating each of these faults. A high correlation be- 
tween them for any fault indicates a comparatively large amount of 
agreement between judges as regards that special fault. The cor- 
relation of all these r qi q^s with the r p qs shows to what extent 
a high degree of agreement between judges as to the amount of 
any fault which is present in any sampler accompanies the proba- 
bility that that same fault is a good indication of the merit of a 
sampler as a whole; and vice versa to what extent a low degree of 
agreement between judges as to the amount of a certain fault 
which is present indicates that that fault is not a good index of 
general merit in sewing. Table XV shows this correlation to be . 89, 
This seems surprisingly high. It might at first thought seem to 
be explained by the fact that disagreement between judges which 
would make a low gi §2 coefftcient of correlation would introduce 
an element of chance error into the measures of the amount of these 
faults about which judges were especially disagreed, and that this 
element of chance in the measures would, of course, lower the cor- 
relation between amount of that fault and general merit — ^the action 
of chance inaccuracies of a measure being always to lower any 
correlation based upon it. Therefore we should naturally expect to 
find a rather high positive correlation between the two sets of cor- 
relations themselves. This explanation would fully account for the 
average of . 89 between the two columns of correlations, were it not 
for the fact that the correlation formula which we used does away with 
all attenuation of the coefficient of correlation which is due to chance 
inaccuracies of the paired measures. This being the case, another 
explanation of the coefficient of correlation of . 89 must be sought. 

Two possible explanations are worth considering. One is that 
people may agree more among themselves about the things that 
strike them as significant than they do upon other points. Table 
VIII, which shows the facts considered significant by eleven judges 
in evaluating samplers for general merit, does not seem to indicate 
that the points upon which these judges especially based their 
judgments, as far as they recognized what these were, are much the 
same as the points upon which judges agree, which is shown by high 
correlations in the r q\ 52 column of Table XIV. This comparison 
is rather difficult to make, due to the difficulty of understanding 
just what is meant by many of the entries in Table VIII. 

Another possible explanation is that the six judges who deter- 
mined the value of the sixty-four samplers as to general merit prob- 



Faults in Sewing 8i 

ably disagreed among themselves in respect to the same faults that 
the sixteen judges who judged for each fault disagreed about. The 
six judges, each of whom presumably was influenced somewhat, at 
least, by all of the same factors which are definitely mentioned in 
our list of twenty-three faults, made /o/aZ judgments depending upon 
these twenty-three features. The features upon which they agreed 
would, however, in the final estimate of them all, have more weight 
than those upon which they disagreed in determining the total 
amount of general merit. This is true because the influence of 
chance would bring about zero influence to the factors upon which 
they disagreed, since positive judgments and negative judgments 
would occur equally often concerning them. The final estimate of 
amount of general merit made by several persons would thus 
depend more upon the amount of those factors concerning which 
the judges agreed than upon the amount of those factors concerning 
which they disagreed. This probably is the proper explanation of the 
high coefficient of .89 for the correlation between reliability of 
judgment concerning a fault and its agreement with general merit. 

It remained to find the correlation which existed between certain 
faults and certain others. Many such might be found of interest 
for various reasons. The author was especially interested in find- 
ing the correlation of the following five pairs of faults: Fault i and 
2, "Stitches and spaces too large," with "Unevenness in size." This 
correlation, when corrected for attenuation, was found to be .88. This 
and the other correlations to be given here between pairs of faults 
were obtained from measures of only thirty-two samplers, instead 
of the sixty-four used for our former correlations; therefore, they 
have a somewhat smaller amount of reliability. The corrected 
coefficient of correlation between Faults i and 3, "Stitches and 
spaces too large" and "Line of sewing crooked," is .82; between 
Faults 3 and 23, "Line of sewing crooked" and "Individual stitches in 
backstitch and combination crooked," .91; between Faults 6 and 
7, "Slant of stitches incorrect" and "Stitches not parallel in slant with 
one another," .99; between Faults 8 and 9, "Knots and fastenings 
large, conspicuous, and badly made" and "Knots and fastening sin- 
secure or absent," . 39. 

As stated earlier, we cannot be sure that judgments concerning 
the various faults were uninfluenced by other factors present in the 
sampler, except that all the judges apparently tried to eliminate 
all else and believed they had succeeded. We also stated that in 



82 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

case they did not succeed in this elimination it is quite conceivable 
that there were constant errors working in both directions which 
would balance one another. If the judges succeeded in being un- 
influenced by other factors, or if the constant errors balanced one 
another, the results give a true estimate of the amount of agreement 
which exists between these various pairs of faults. 

The reader is again reminded that all of the correlation found to 
exist between any pair of faults is not by any means dependent 
upon these faults alone. Many other factors, such as general intel- 
ligence, general motor control, ability to pay attention, interest in 
sewing and in success itself, and the like, all enter in to swell the 
correlation, probably to an enormous amount. The method of 
Partial Coefficients of Correlation alone could eliminate such extra- 
neous influences. Due to the many common causes, the presence 
of many of which are necessary for all efficient living, positive cor- 
relations, often of a high amount, have repeatedly been found by 
psychologists to exist between all desirable traits. Such positive 
correlations were found by McCall ^^ to exist between all desirable 
traits,^^ though it is interesting to note that in many parts of the 
same subject, McCall did not find such high correlations to exist 
as we have found between various sewing abilities. Addition, he 
finds, correlates with problem solving, . 32 ; visual vocabulary with 
reading, .82; copying addresses with handwriting, .52. Rogers, in 
the study of mathematical ability, quoted earlier, finds that alge- 
braic computation correlates with matching equations and prob- 
lems, .82; with reasoning, .44; with arithmetic problems, .50; with 
Trabue language scales, .41; and with Thorndike reading tests, 
.38. These latter two she finds correlate with one another, .87. 
Winch,^^ in a study of school children, found that the correlation 
between substance memory and imagination is .75. Hollingworth, 
in an earlier quoted study of disability in spelling, finds that the 
correlation between difficulty in recall and in recognition, both of 
the spelling of words, was .33. Seashore,^^ in his tests of musical 
ability, found the highest correlation of pitch discrimination, out of 

21 McCall, W. A., Correlation of Some Psychological and Educational Measurements, 
1916. 

*' With the possible exception of traits involved in cancellation tests, if such traits 
are indeed desirable. 

23 Winch, W. H., "Some Relations between Substance Memory and Productive 
Imagination in School Children," British Journal of Psychology, vol. iv, pp. 95-125. 

2* Seashore, C. E., Studies in Psychology, University of Iowa, 1918. 



Faults in Sewing 83 

fourteen tests, to be that with tonal imagery, .52. The highest cor- 
relation he found between any of these tests, was that between sing- 
ing interval and singing keynotes, which gave a correlation of .61. 
To be sure there seems to exist an exception to the fact that desir- 
able traits are positively correlated in the case of some features 
of the ability to draw. Ayer^^ studied the matter, and reports that 
he finds practically zero correlation between drawing and descrip- 
tion and also between drawing and diagramming. The coefficients 
found were .023 for the former pair and — .052 for the latter. Dia- 
gramming and description he found to have a correlative coefficient 
of .231. Drawing, however, is an exception to this general truth, as 
has been noted by other authors besides Ayer.^^ It remains true 
that positive correlations between desirable traits are the rule, the 
extent of the correlation in each case depending upon the number of 
outside elements common to the two functions measured, and the 
degree of relatedness between the two functions themselves. 

As we have stated before, knowledge of the correlations existing 
between various phases of one subject should be had for three 
reasons: (i) because they emphasize the fact that in the main such 
correlations are positive (this fact seems to be particularly true in 
sewing); (2) because they emphasize the fact that such correla- 
tions are seldom, if ever, i .00, thus suggesting the necessity of in- 
dividual analytic records; (3) because they show the relative differ- 
ence between correlations of some elements of the total ability 
with that ability as a whole, and some other elements with the total 
ability, thus indicating which elements are in themselves most 
significant of the total ability. 

The amounts of the actual correlations which we found between 
various pairs of faults are interesting mainly in a relative way. 
They show, for instance, that "larger size" of stitches slightly more 
often accompanies "unevenness in size" than it does a "crooked line" 
of sewing; that teachers who do not differentiate between "wrong 
slant" and "lack of parallelness in slant" do not thereby do as much 
harm as teachers who fail to call the child's attention to the differ- 
ence between "crooked line of sewing" and "crooked individual 
stitches," since the latter two are less well correlated with each 

25 Ayer, F. C, The Psychology of Drawing, 1916. 

2^ Albein, Der Anteil der nachkonstruierenden Tdtigkeit des Auges und der Appercep- 
tion an dem Behalten und der Wiedergabe einfacher Formen, 1907, p. 33. Terman, "Genius 
and Stupidity," Pedagogical Seminary, 1906. Rouma, Le Langage Graphique de 
I' Enfant, p. 199. 



84 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



Table XVI. Average amount of the fault 'stitches too large' for each of the six 

different stitches on sixty-four samplers, as judged by eight individuals, and 

the average for the six stitches. Also amount of stitches too large when 

judged for all stitches together by eighteen individuals 



Identifica- 
tion No. 
of Samplers 


Basting 


Running 


Combin- 
ation 


Hem- 
ming 


Back- 
stitch 


Over- 
casting 


Average 
of Six 
Stitches 
Judged 
Sepa- 
rately 


Six Stitches 
Judged To- 
gether for 
Stitches 
too Large 


3 


I.I 


1.0 


1-9 


4.1 


1-9 


2.9 


2.1 


2.3 


9 


•9 


1.6 


2.1 


3-1 


4.0 


3-6 


2.5 


2.3 


II 


1.2 


3-1 


3-2 


3-2 


2.6 


•9 


2.4 


2.2 


44 


1.6 


1-5 


1.4 


3-1 


1-5 


2.7 


2.0 


1.4 


59 


•9 


4-4 


3-5 


4-5 


3-5 


•9 


2.9 


3-0 


125 


.6 


1.2 


2.4 


1.0 


1.8 


2.9 


1.6 


1.4 


137 


1.4 


3-0 


3-4 


3-9 


2.7 


1.2 


2.6 


2.5 


204 


•7 


31 


3-4 


1-5 


2.0 


.6 


1-9 


2.3 


242 


•5 


2.7 


2.5 




2.0 


1.4 


1.8 


2.4 


245 


•7 


1-7 


.1 


3-2 


30 


•9 


1.6 


2.6 


258 


1.2 


3-2 


1-7 


3-7 


1-9 


1.2 


2.1 


2.9 


308 


1.4 


1-9 


1.4 


4.6 


2. 


I.I 


2.1 


2.9 


352 


•7 


.2 


•4 


1.2 


•4 


.6 


.6 


•5 


367 


1-5 


1-7 


2.0 


2.1 


I.I 


1.4 


1.6 


1.6 


374 


1.6 


•5 


•7 


•5 


■9 


.6 


.8 


•5 


377 


•9 


•7 


1.2 


.2 


•9 


2.2 


1.0 


1-3 


382 


I.I 


•5 


.2 


•5 


.6 


.2 


•5 


•3 


415 


1.2 


1-9 


2.2 


2.5 


2.6 


•7 


1.8 


1-7 


416 


I.O 


.2 


.6 


2.4 


•5 


•9 


•9 


•9 


427 


1.4 


2.7 


2.0 


3-1 


I.I 


3-0 


2.2 


2.5 


442 


1.2 


3-6 


3-9 


3-9 


2.5 


.6 


2.6 


2.9 


452 


.2 


31 


3-1 


3-9 


•9 


I.I 


2.0 


2.6 


494 


•5 


2.7 


30 


3-2 


1.8 


.6 


2.0 


1-7 


499 


•7 


1.8 


3-4 


2.0 


1.8 


1.2 


1.8 


1.6 


590 


1.2 


.2 


1.0 


•9 


•4 


1-7 


•9 


•9 


634 


1.2 


2.4 


3-2 


3-1 


3-1 


2.1 


2.5 


2.9 


665 


•4 


.1 


2.5 


.2 


.1 


1.2 


•7 


•5 


692 


1.2 


•9 


2.5 


2-4 


1.8 


1-9 


1.8 


2.0 


734 


•5 


1.0 


1.6 


1-9 


1.0 


1-9 


1-3 


1-3 


746 


•7 


.6 


1.0 


1-5 


1.0 


1.6 


I.I 


•9 



Faults in Sewing 
Table XVI — Continued 



85 



Identifica- 
tion No. 
of Samplers 


Basting 


Running 


Combin- 
ation 


Hem- 
ming 


Back- 
stitch 


Over- 
casting 


Average 
of Six 
Stitches 
Judged 
Sepa- 
rately. 


Six Stitches 
Judged To- 
gether for 
Stitches 
too Large 


751 


2.2 


1.4 


3-0 


I.I 


•7 


3-4 


2.0 


2.1 


841 


2.2 


1.0 


1-5 


1-9 


.6 


2.1 


1-5 


1-9 


17 


.1 


•7 


1.6 


1.6 


3-4 


•7 


1-3 


1-3 


.33 


1-7 


2.7 


2.1 


3-0 


2.1 


3-6 


2.5 


31 


48 


1-9 


1-7 


2.1 


1-5 


•5 


•5 


1.4 


1.8 


92 


•9 


2.9 


3-9 


3-2 


2.2 


3-2 


2.1 


3-3 


112 


.6 


•9 


1.6 


1-5 


•4 


1-5 


I.I 


1.2 


114 


•5 


3-1 


3-2 


2.1 


■5 


2.6 


2.0 


2.1 


138 


1.6 


2.4 


1-5 


3-9 


1.2 


2.2 


2.1 


2.0 


146 


1.2 


2.1 


2.6 


2.0 


2.0 


1.6 


2.0 


1-9 


212 


.1 


•4 


1.4 


•9 


.6 


.6 


•7 


I.I 


244 


.0 


•9 


1.0 


•7 


1.2 


•5 


•7 


.8 


247 


1.4 


3-1 


4.2 


2.4 


2.7 


1.4 


2.5 


2.9 


275 


•9 






1-5 


1-5 


1-7 


1.4 


2.5 


302 


•5 


.1 


.2 


.0 


•5 


1.0 


•4 


.4 


329 


I.I 


2.5 


•9 


•4 


.1 


1.4 


I.I 


.8 


336 


•5 


•9 


•5 


1-9 


•4 


.6 


.8 


I.I 


377 


I.I 


.1 


1.2 


.2 


•5 


.2 


•5 


1.0 


412 


2.2 


2.5 


I.I 


1-7 


•9 


•9 


1-5 


1-9 


443 


2.4 


4.2 


1.4 


3-7 


2.1 


1-5 


2.5 


2.6 


444 


•5 


3-7 


3-4 


3-2 


2.4 


1-5 


2.4 


2.3 


447 


•4 


3-0 


1-7 


3-9 


1-9 


•9 


2.0 


2.1 


581 


.6 


•4 


•4 


1.4 


.4 


1.4 


.8 


.8 


605 


•4 


1-9 


•5 


2.6 


.2 


1-9 


1.2 


1.6 


613 


1.6 




4.4 


4.6 


2.1 


I.I 


2.8 


30 


636 


I.O 


.6 


.6 


1.0 


1.6 


1.4 


1.0 


1-9 


639 


1.2 


2.1 


2.0 


3-4 


•9 


3-5 


2.2 


2.9 


644 


I.I 


1.6 


I.I 


1-5 


I.I 


3-0 


1.6 


2.6 


646 


2.0 


1.2 


1.0 


3-1 


.6 


2.6 


1-7 


2.8 


662 


.87 


.1 


3-2 


1.2 


.0 


2.1 


2.5 


1.4 


668 


■37 


•9 


2.0 


.2 


•4 


1.4 


1.4 


I.I 


694 


•37 


2.0 


2.4 


2.4 


1.2 


1.2 


2.1 


2.6 


741 


2.9 


•4 


2.7 


2.0 


•5 


1.0 


1.6 


1-5 


747 


I.I 


.1 


3-0 


•9 


.1 


•9 


1.0 


1.2 



86 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

other than are the former pair. "Knots and fastenings unduly large 
or badly made and conspicuous," one might think, would cor- 
relate even negatively with "Knots and fastenings insecure and 
absent." It is quite conceivable, however, that a large and con- 
spicuous knot may be an insecure one; however, the chances are 
that the attempt to make the less detailed list of faults mutually 
exclusive, was not successful, and that part of the positive correla- 
tion of . 39, which exists between these faults, and which is not de- 
pendent upon the outside factors which we have so often mentioned, 
is due to the overlapping of the terms "badly made" and "insecure." 

The study of the twenty-three faults which has just been com- 
pleted could be carried still further. The detailed analysis of pos- 
sible faults given in Table X indicates that most of the twenty-three 
faults here studied could themselves be subdivided in very much 
the same way as faults in general were analyzed and studied above. 
As a sample, we have analyzed some of the subdivisions of Fault i. 
This fault is "Stitches and spaces too large." In the detailed analy- 
sis, reference to spaces is omitted. Six subdivisions of the fault 
were studied, namely, stitches too large in basting, running, com- 
bination, hemming, backstitch, and overcasting respectively. 

In this new test eight women acted as judges. They went through 
the same set of sixty-four samplers which had been judged for the 
twenty-three faults. This time they passed judgments on the six 
faults just mentioned, going through all of the sixty-four samplers 
and working for one of these faults before considering another. 
They were in ignorance of their rating for any other fault when 
rating a sampler for an additional fault. The same precautions and 
directions for marking were given them as had been given to the 
judges of the twenty-three faults. The possible scores they might 
give the samplers ranged again from o to 5. It was again empha- 
sized that the entire range of possible scores need not be covered 
for every fault. Zero in every case should mean that no amount of 
the fault was present. Table XVI gives the average amounts of 
the scores given by the eight individuals for each sampler in each 
of these six faults. The average of the vsix faults is given, and the 
score for the average amount for the different samplers of Fault i, 
"Stitches and spaces too large," from our earlier set of twenty-three 
faults, is repeated here from Table XII for comparison. Table XVII 
gives the same data in a different form. This table is comparable to 



Faults in Sewing 



87 



Table XVII. Distribution of amounts of stitches too large for different kinds of sewing. The 
25 percentiles, medians and 75 percentiles are indicated by connecting lines. Data from 
Table XVI. 



3 

< 


1 


e 
c 

S. 


!5 
E e 
(S-B 


C 

1 

E 

£ 


1 


c 

1 


Average of 
Six Stitches 
Judged Sep- 
arately 


Six Stitches 
Judged To- 
gether for 
Stitches too 
[Large 


.0 

1 


I 

2 


5 


1 


I 


I 
3 








.2 


I 


3 


2 


4 


I 


2 






•3 
















I 


■4 


5 


3 


2 


I 


6 




I 


I 


■5 
.6 
■7 
.8 
•9 

I.O 

I.I 

1.2 


3 

5 

6 

\ 


2 

^■^^ 
2 \ 

\ 
\ 

5 

3 

2 


2 
2 

I 

2 


2 
I 

2 / 
, / 

-4 


1 I 
1 

f 

5 


2 

7 

2 

V 

3 

5 


2 

I 
3 
3 

2 

I 


3 

3 
3 
I 

3 


1-3 


,\ 


V 






/ 


X 


2 


3 


1-4 


\ I 


4 


1 


/ 


X 


3 


3 


1-5 


■\ 


\l 


2 


6 


/ ^ 


r\ 


2 


I 


1.6 


: \ 


€) 


3 


I 


I 


2 


N^ 


3 


J 7 


3\v 


2 


I / 




2 


Til 


2 


1.8 


. \ 


I 


X 


1 


4 




4^^ 


^^ 


19 


3 


Q^ 


if 


3 


3 


I 


^ 


2.0 
21 
2.2 


I 
3 


\ ; 
\ 


4 
3 


2 




2 


7 


2 

3 


2-3 
2-4 

2.5 


I 




2 
3 


4 
I 


/ 

/ : 




2 

6 


\ 4 


2.6 




I 


' 


2 


2 


2 


5 


2-7 
2.8 

2.9 


I 


I 


I 
\ 


/ 


2 


I 
2 


1 
I 


I 
6 


30 




2 


^^ 


I 


2 




2 


31 

3-2 




5 

I 


4 


^^^ 


I 


I 




I 


3-3 
















1 


3-4 






4 


I 


I 


I 






3-5 






1 




I 


I 






3-6 




1 








2 






3-7 




I 




2 










3-8 


















39 






2 


5 










4.0 










I 








4-1 








I 










4-2 




I 


I 












43 


















4-4 




1 


1 












45 








I 










46 








2 










47 


















4.8 


















49 


















No 


64 


62 


63 


•63 


64 


64 


64 


64 


M 


1.0 


1.6 


19 


2.0 


I.I 


>4 


'■7 


^•9 


Q 


■35 


■55 


•95 


I. 


•75 


.6 


•5 


■65 



88 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

Table XIII, which gave the same information concerning the 
twenty-three faults which is here given for the six faults of "Stitches 
too large" in six different kinds of sewing. Inspection of this table 
is equally valuable. It reveals at a glance the median and varia- 
bility of this fault as it exists in the six different stitches, showing us 
here, through the presence of a high median, which of these faults is 
hard to overcome. We thus see that hemming and combination 
stitch have the worst records in regard to large stitches, whereas 
basting and backstitch have almost the same small median of i. 
and I.I respectively. That the more general fault of "Stitches and 
spaces too large" has a median amount value equal to that of com- 
bination stitch (1.9) and just .1 less than that for hemming, which 
has the highest median amount of all these six faults, indicates that 
in scoring for the more general fault judges were more influenced 
by the stitches which had comparatively large amounts of the fault 
"Stitches too large" than by those which had little of it. 

As was done in the case of the twenty-three faults, so now for the 
six kinds of "Stitches too large," the correlation was found between 
each one and general amount of the whole sampler. This was found 
as before for the sixty-four samplers. The four coefficients of cor- 
relation necessary to correct for attenuation and the final corrected 
coefficient of each of the six faults with general merit are given in 
Table XVIII. 

A comparison of Tables XVII and XVIII shows that hemming, 
the stitch in which this fault of large stitches is hardest to overcome, 
as shown by the high median amount of it (2.0) which existed in our 
sixty-four samplers, is also the stitch which, in respect of this fault, 
has the greatest amount of significance for general merit. Over- 
casting and basting stitches being "too large," are faults rather easy 
to overcome, and with a small amount of significance for general 
merit. This we should expect from the fact that these two stitches 
often are purposely made rather large. However, runnmg-stitch is 
not, and yet we find that in regard to fault in size of its stitches it is 
approximately half way between these two and hemming. 

On the other hand, backstitching is shown to have a different 
amount of importance by the two tables. Table XVII shows by 
its low median value of i.i that it is comparatively seldom present in 
large amounts. In spite of this, however, it is seen by Table XVIII 
that the importance of large stitches in backstitching, as a symptom 
of general merit, is fairly great, the two having an inverse correlation 



Faults in Sewing 



89 



Table XVIII. Coefficients of correlation found between general merit 

of the whole sampler, and the fault 'stitches too large' as it occurs 

in each of six kinds of stitches 

pi = general merit as judged by three judges using the scale 

pi = general merit as judged by three other judges using the scale 

qi = amount of the fault 'stitches too large' for each kind of stitch, as judged by four 

judges 
52 = amount of the fault 'stitches too large' for each kind of stitch, as judged by four 

other judges 



Kind of stitch being judged for 
the fault 'stitches too large' 


rpip2 


rgig2 


rpiqi 


rpiqi 


rpq 


Hemming 


.967 


.809 


-•734 


-.699 


-.81 


Running 


.967 


•965 


-•675 


-.787 


-.76 


Backstitch 


.967 


.869 


-.678 


— .642 


-.719 


Combination 


.967 


.881 


-•511 


-.487 


-•541 


Overcasting 


.967 


■787 


-■175 


-.268 


-.249 


Basting 


.967 


•779 


— .211 


-.078 


-.148 



of .72. Reversely, combination stitch has a less important signifi- 
cance for general merit (an inverse correlation between them is .54), 
but it is much more often present in large amounts, the median 
amount of this fault possessed by sixty- four samplers being 1.9. 

Column r gi §2 of Table XVIII gives the correlations between 
random halves of the eight judges concerning "Stitches too large," 
in the case of the six stitches. These eight judges agree well as 
regards this fault when it appears in running stitch (the reliability 
coefficient here is .96). When it appears in overcasting and basting 
they agree only to the amounts represented by reliability coefficients 
of .79 and .80. When judging for the same fault in hemming they 
agree very little better. The reliability coefficient for this stitch 
is .81. 

Similar studies of the detailed analysis of the twenty-two remain- 
ing faults should be made which would give information of a kind 
comparable to that given here for parts of Fault i (not all the 
parts, for "Spaces too large" was not measured in the detailed study). 
Only by means of such studies is a teacher enabled accurately to 
know in what stitch or part of the product various kinds of faults 
are apt to be found, and only so is she enabled to know how much 
of a symptom of general merit a certain fault may be, according to 
the particular stitch in which it is found. 



SECTION V 
THE RELIABILITY OF MEASUREMENTS OF SEWING 

RELIABILITY IN RELATION TO THE KIND OF STITCH 

In order to determine the importance of each of the five sewing 
stitches represented upon the sampler in indicating general merit 
of the sampler as a whole, lOO samplers which had already been 
evaluated by twelve judges were used. These samples were cut 
into five pieces each in such a way that the different kinds of sewing 
were separated. The basting stitches were ripped out, and the 
backstitching and overcasting respectively were ripped from the 
two pieces into which the original seam was cut. It was unfor- 
tunately impossible to use all of each of those stitches without 
destroying the seams and making the judgments upon them some- 
what ambiguous. The scheme for giving identification numbers to 
the different samplers, was such that it would be impossible from 
them alone to identify the parts which originally formed one whole, 
unless one were familiar with the numbering key. We thus had 
100 samples each of the following stitches: hemming, running, back- 
stitching, overcasting, and combination stitch. 

The lOO samplers were made in one school by fifty children, each 

child having made two samplers. This fact is not of importance 

- here, but will be dealt with later. All that is necessary to note here 

is that the selection was made in a way to produce a fairly normal 

surface of distribution. 

Twenty judgments were made upon each of the five sets of lOO 
samples of sewing. Directions were given that the lOO pieces be 
placed in seven piles in accordance with their merit as samples 
of hemming, overcasting, running, etc. The differences in merit 
between these samples in the seven piles were to be equal. 

Tor each of the five stitches the judgments of ten alternate judges 
were grouped and served as one measure of merit for that stitch. 
The judgments of the other ten judges served as the second measure. 
The correlation between general merit of the original sampler before 
cutting and the merit of each of the five stitches separately found 
after cutting was obtained; also the correlation between the sum 



The Reliability of Measurements of Sewing 



91 



of the scores for the stitches judged separately and total merit 
before cutting. The use of two measures for each fact made it 
possible to free the correlations from the attenuation which would 
be found in a raw correlation obtained from only one measure of 
each fact, which attenuation is due to chance inaccuracies of the 



Table XIX. Coefficients of correlation between samples of separate stitches 

and the sum of these stitches with general merit of the whole sampler, 

giving all the coefficients necessary to correct for attenuation 

pi = one measure of total merit which is the average of judgments made by six in- 
dividuals 

p2 = one other measure of total merit which is the average of judgments made by six 
other individuals 

51 = one measure of the samples of each stitch, which is the average of judgments 
made by ten individuals 

52 = one other measure of the samples of each stitch, which is the average of judg- 
ments made by ten other individuals 



Stitches correlated with 
general merit 


rqiQi 


rpiqi 


rp2qi 


rpq 


Hemming 


.88 


.78 


.69 


.82 


Running 


.82 


.67 


.70 


.80 


Combination 


•91 


.62 


.66 


•71 


Backstitch 


•95 


.61 


.62 


.66 


Overcasting 


.92 


.62 


•50 


.61 


Sum of six stitches 


.96 


.87 


•85 


•94 



original measures. The intercorrelations between the two meas- 
ures are also useful in furnishing the means of testing the reliability 
of the judgments. Table XIX gives the actual coefficients of 
correlation used in obtaining the final coefficients, corrected for 
attenuation. Column r qi q^ contains the coefficients of reliability 
of the judgments made upon these samples of sewing. Column rpq 
contains the corrected coefficients of correlation between general 
merit and the several stitches, as judged by the samples of stitches 
which were used. These coefficients constitute a measure of the 
indication which the sample used of each sewing stitch is of 
general merit of the sampler as a whole. Since the amount of sewing 
upon which the judgments were based was only half as much in 
the case of the backstitching and overcasting, half of the original 
sewing in each of these cases having been ripped away, as has 



92 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

already been explained, there is a possible insecurity in drawing 
conclusions from our data so far as concerns comparisons of these 
two stitches and the other three. The correction for attenuation, 
however, probably puts all the inter-comparisons of the corrected 
coefficients on the same footing since they give the correlations 

1 We cannot be positive that the one and one-half inches of overcasting and back- 
stitch were indeed absolutely random samples of the whole amount. Therefore, in 
order to discover whether a difference in the amount of sewing represented by the 
overcasting and backstitching samples (one and one-half inches each) and that repre- 
sented by the samples of the other three stitches which were twice as large, was really 
sufficient to cause a difference in the judgments made upon them, ten new judgments 
were made upon one-half of each of the loo samples of hemming, running, and combi- 
nation stitch, the other half being covered by a piece of paper or cloth. The cor- 
relation was then found, for each of the three stitches, between the average of these 
ten new judgments which were based upon one and one-half inches of sewing and the 
average of ten of the twenty judges who had three inches of sewing to base judgments 
upon. These correlations in the case of each stitch were compared with those which 
had been found between the two groups of ten judges, each of which group had judged 
upon the basis of three inches of sewing. Table XX shows both these correlations, the 
difference between the correlations, and the P.E. of this difference. In the case of two 
of the stitches (hemming and combination stitch) the first of these correlations (that 
between judgments all based upon three inches of sewing) is higher, and the difference 
between the correlations is more than twice the P.E. of the difference. This indicates 
that a difference possibly does exist between judgments based upon one and one-half 
inches of this kind of sewing and judgments based upon three inches, but it can hardly 
be said that it is proved that this difference exists, since due to chance alone 17.7 cases 
out of 100 would fall beyond twice the P.E. of the difference, were there in reality no 
difference at all in the facts judged. In the case of the running stitch the second cor- 
relation is higher and the difference between the two being less than twice the P.E. of 
the difference, it is probable that one and one-half inches of running stitch yield the 
same judgments that three inches do. 



Table XX. Coefficients of correlation between average of ten judgments made 
upon three inches of sewing of various stitches and average of ten other such 
judgments; and between the average of the first ten, and the average of the ten 
judgments based upon one and one-half inches of sewing of the same stitches. 

qi = average of first ten judges upon three inches of sewing 

52 = average of second ten judges upon three inches of sewing 

53 = average of ten judges upon one and one-half inches of sewing 





Hemming 


Running 


Combination 


rgiffi 


.882 ±.015 


.824=t .022 


.911 ± .Oil 


rSi23 


.768=^ .007 


.854=*= .018 


.832=^ .021 


Difference between above cor- 








relations 


.114 


— 03 


.079 


P. E. of difference 


•034 


.056 


•043 



The Reliability of Measurements of Sewing 



93 



which would be found if we had had an infinite number of judges, 
instead of ten or twenty, rate the specimens. With an infinite 
number of judges the result from rating one and a half inches taken 
by chance from a specimen would presumably be the same as that 
from rating the whole of it.^ 

The last column of Table XIX shows that the five stitches vary, 
as indicators of general merit, from .61, which is the correlation of 
general merit with overcasting, to .82, which is its correlation with 
hemming. In deciding upon the general merit of an article of sew- 
ing, other things being equal, one should give more weight to the 
hemming stitches and the running stitches (the correlation of run- 
ning with general merit being .80, almost as high as that of hem- 
ming). Least weight of all these five stitches should be given to 
overcasting, and almost as little to backstitch, combination stitch 
taking an intermediate place. These different weights should be 
assigned to the different stitches, not because they each contribute 
such-and-such proportional amounts to general merit as a whole; in 
fact, what the independent contributions are of each stitch to 
general merit is not shown in Table XIX. That matter is suggested 
just below where the partial coefficients of correlation of each 
stitch with general merit are given. Even, however, with only 
such knowledge at hand as is given in Table XIX, that is, knowledge 
of the actual correlations which exist between each stitch and 
general merit, we may say that more weight should be given to the 
hemming than to other stitches, because it better indicates general 
merit, this being shown by its higher coefficient of correlation with it. 

The partial coefficients were then found of each stitch with gen- 
eral merit, when the effect of the other stitches was eliminated. 



Table XXI. Correlations found between each stitch and every other stitch, 
as well as between each stitch and general merit 





General . 
Merit 


Combina- 
tion 


Running 


Over- 
casting 


Hemming 


Back- 
stitch 


General merit 




■71 


.80 


.62 


.83 


•67 


Combination 


•71 




■78 


■ :!>7 


.58 


.62 


Running 


.80 


.78 




.42 


.67 


.64 


Overcasting 


.62 


•37 


.42 




•35 


.26 


Hemming 


■83 


.58 


.67 


' -35 




•47 


Backstitch 


.67 


.62 


.64 


.26 


•47 





94 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

For a discussion of this method and its implications the reader is 
referred back to Section 4. Table XXI gives the intercorrelations 
of each stitch with every other stitch, a necessary preliminary know- 
ledge to the finding of the partial coefficients. Table XXII gives 
the partial coefficients of each stitch with general merit. 

Table XXII. Partial coefficients of correlation between general merit and each 
stitch. Each coefficient was found in two ways and the average taken 





Combination 


Running 


Overcasting 


Hemming 


Backstitch 


First finding 


.0885 


.2902 


.6666 


.7496 


.4912 


Second 












finding 


.0843 


.2902 


.6729 


•7519 


.4897 


Average 


.0864 


.2902 


.6698 


•7507 


.4904 



RELIABILITY IN RELATION TO SYNTHETIC VS. ANALYTIC 
JUDGMENTS 

In order to compare synthetic judgments, or those made upon 
the samplers as a whole, when these were judged for general merit 
before being cut, with the analytic judgments made upon the cut-up 
portions, the correlation (corrected for attenuation) was found 
which exists between the total value of the sampler before cutting, 
and the sums of the value of the five different parts when these 
were judged separately. This correlation is given in Table XIX. It 
may seem strange that it is not i .00 rather than .94. Several reasons 
besides chance may account for this. First, all the basting stitches 
were removed from the cut-up pieces, and half of the overcasting 
and backstitching. A probably more important omission from the 
'parts' of that which was contained in the 'whole', was the factor of 
relative arrangement of the stitches upon the total sampler. 

Another factor which, if it existed, would surely lower the cor- 
relation between any whole and the sum of its parts, even if all of 
these were surely included, would be that in adding together the 
parts, a wrong weighting might be attached to each, as far as its 
relative importance in determining the whole was concerned. The 
weighting assigned here was that of giving equal emphasis to every 
stitch. That the stitches have not exactly equal importance as 
symptoms of general merit has been shown. Everything consid- 
ered, it is really rather surprising that the correlation is so high as 



The Reliability of Measurements oj Sewing 95 

.94, and that it is so seems to indicate that the five different stitches 
must have very nearly an equal effect in indicating general merit. 
It is of importance to the theory of educational measurement to 
know how reliable are judgments made upon total merit of some 
school subject, such as a bit of penmanship, an English composition, 
or a simple sewing sampler, when compared with the sum of judg- 
ments made upon various features of the same product. The use of 
data obtained from Table XIX enables us to answer this question 
in regard to the sewing sampler. We find there in the line for "Sums 
of five stitches," that r pi p2 is .88 and r gi 52 is .96 ; r pi pi is the 
correlation between six judges and six other judges for total merit 
of the whole sampler; r qi q^ is the correlation between the sum of 
ten judgments upon each of the five stitches separately and the 
sum of ten other judgments upon the same five stitches separately. 
By using the formula^ 

n n 
i+(n— i)ri 

we can find what the comparison between these correlations of 
pi p2 and 5i qi would be if they had been made upon the basis of 
the same number of judgments. Thus, by substituting 10/6 for n, 
we find that the correlation which we would obtain for r pi p2 would 
be .92 if we had used twenty judges instead of twelve. The com- 
parison of reliability properly then should be made between co- 
efficients of .92 and .96 respectively for general merit judged in toto 
and for general merit when judged by the sum of the elements 
which compose it. When we consider the increase of time and 
energy necessarily spent in evaluating separately for five stitches, 
as compared to a rough general rating in terms of general merit 
alone, it is evidently a much wiser educational practice to use total 
merit as a criterion rather than the sums of judgments made upon 
the various stitches separately, since the coefficient of reliability is 
almost as high for general merit judged as a total. 

RELIABILITY IN RELATION TO THE NUMBER OF SAMPLES 

To determine the reliability of one or more samples of a child's 
sewing in evaluating her real ability in that kind of sewing, the 
data described under A of this section were used, but instead of 
treating the 100 total samplers before cutting and the 100 samplers 

' Suggested by William Brown in The Essentials of Mental Measurement. 



96 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

of each of the five separate samples of sewing obtained after cutting 
as forming each one set of facts to be measured, the lOO pieces of 
sewing to be measured in each of the six cases were, for this portion 
of our experiment, separated into those which were made first and 
those which were made one week later by the fifty children who 
produced them. Correlations were then obtained between the 

Table XXIII. Coefficients of correlation corrected for attenuation, between the 
first and second performance, in various kinds of sewing, of fifty pupils; also 
the number of samples, such as were used, of the various kinds of sewing which 
would be necessary to produce reliability coefficients of .go, .p5, and .gjS- 





-o 


^^. 


&SS 


b'sK 




c 


a ' ^, 


nJ • 0, 


S 




rt 




soa 


ffi c g 

S "^ 






c c 
(LI 5 


OEM 






s " 


">i5 (u 


m M !? 


m u tS 




o fc 


c 

u 3 C 


jy-i! 2 


d "• 




■z a 


h 3 m 


||-Ss 




•!•« 


.S'gS 


^^S 




1% 


g 2 „ 

3^S 


f-§ 


i^iet 




u^ 


2S& 


Z2$ 


2 ° o> rt 


Total sampler 


■72 


4-3 


9.2 


18.9 


Backstitch 


.80 


2.3 


4-9 


lO.O 


Running 


.64 


5-0 


10.6 


21.8 


Hemming 


.62 


5-5 


11.6 


23-8 


Combination 


.60 


6.1 


12.9 


26.4 


Overcasting 


.40 


13-6 


28.7 


59-0 



first and second performances of the total sampler, and of each of 
the five stitches separately. Table XXIII gives these coefficients 
of correlation, corrected for attenuation. 

It is important to note the very great difference which exists 
between some of these correlations. A child's performance at over- 
casting, made one week later, has a correlation with the earlier 
performance of only .40; whereas the correlation between two 
samples of backstitching made at the same time as the over- 
casting and upon the same samplers, is .80. The other three stitches 
are more alike in this respect, the correlations between the two per- 
formances being respectively .64, .62, and .60 for running, hemming, 
and combination stitch. 



The Reliability of Measurements of Sewing 97 

These correlations furnish a certain indication of the reliability 
of one sample of each of these stitches as a measure of a child's real 
ability in that line. We proposed to go beyond this and to deter- 
mine how many samples of each stitch would be necessary in order 
to know that we had certain specified degrees of probability that a 
child's real ability to make this stitch was measured. This was 
done by the use of the following formula:^ 

n n 



I + («— i) 



As the formula stands, the problem is to find the correlation which 
would obtain if some different number of measures of the original 
facts to be correlated were used. For instance, if we knew the cor- 
relation which exists between one measure of a pupil's ability to 
solve addition problems and another measure of this same ability, 
and if we desired to know the correlation which would be found if 
the average of two such measures were correlated with the average 
of two others, we would find it by substituting 2 for n in the for- 
mula. We, however, made use of the formula in a different way. 
Our problem was — knowing r^ as representing a certain specified 
degree of probability that the ability in question was truly measured, 
to determine the number of measures of each fact which, when cor- 
related with an equal number of such measures, would result in 
the desired measure of probability (that is, in rj. This required 
number was then found by solving the above formula for n. In 
other words, having already found, as shown in the first column of 
Table XXIII, the correlations which exist between one performance 
and one other such performance of the whole sampler and of each 
stitch separately, we now desired to find how many of such per- 
formances we would need to measure in order to obtain correla- 
tions of .90, when these were averaged and correlated with the 
average of an equal number of such measures. The second column 
of Table XXIII gives the required number of samples necessary to 
produce correlations of .90 when paired with as many more. The 
difference noted above between overcasting and backstitch is here 
brought out more emphatically. The results show that 13.6 samples 
of the latter stitch yield no more reliable information concerning a 
child's real ability in producing it than do 2.3 samples of backstitch. 

' Suggested by William Brown in The Essentials of Mental Measurement. 



98 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

In each case that many samples of each stitch, if correlated with as 
many more such samples, would yield a coefficient of correlation of 
.90. In the third and fourth columns of the same table are given 
the number of samples of the total samplers and of each stitch 
which would be necessary in order that correlations of .95 and 
•97K) respectively, would obtain, if an equal number of such samples 
were correlated with them. 

The two performances of each child's sewing, which we used for 
the basis of the previous discussion, were made in two successive 
sewing periods with an interval of one week. We desired to find 
the improvement made by the children as a whole of the second 
performance over the first, in the case of the samplers when judged 
for general merit before being cut, and in case of each of the five 
stitches. The improvement in the total sampler and in each stitch 
was found by taking the difference between the average according 
to the first ten judges (six only for the total sampler) for the samples 
of all the first performances and the average for the samples of all 
the second performances according to the same ten (or six) judges. 
This gave us one measure of difference. In order to test its reliability 
the a of the difference was found by the formula in Whipple's Manual 
of Mental and Physical Tests : ^ 



V (T i2_2r(r I <r2+(r22 
a improvement = 



We thus had one measure of improvement and one measure of the 
unreliability of this improvement for each kind of stitch. A sec- 
ond measure of each was found in exactly the same way, except that 
the scores of the other ten (or six) judges made upon the same 
samples of sewing were used. The average between the two meas- 
ures of improvement and the average between the two measures 
of a were taken as the final measures for these two facts for each of 
the five stitches. In all cases, except hemming, the a of the improve- 
ment was about one-third the improvement. For hemming it was 
a little more than half the improvement. 

Table XXIV shows the amounts and c's of improvement. As 
it happens, this improvement in case of the total sampler and each 
of the stitches is negative. The amount, however, is very small. 

* Page 27. 



The Reliability of Measurements of Sewing 99 

Table XXIV. The improvement of the second sewing performance over 
the first, which was made in the previous sewing period 





Total 


Over- 


Combi- 


Back- 


Hem- 


Run- 




Sampler 


casting 


nation 


stitch 


ming 


ning 


Improvement according to 














first ten judges (only six for 














total sampler) 


-3.00 


-5-6 


-5-5 


-6.1 


-2.9 


-6.5 


(T of improvement according 














ing to first ten judges (only 














six for total sampler) 


.89 


1.8 


1.4 


1.2 


2.0 


1.6 


Improvement according to 














to second ten judges (only 














six for total sampler) 


-4.4 


-44 


-6.2 


-4-5 


-2.3 


-6.8 


<T of improvement according 














to second ten judges (only 














six for total sampler) 


.81 


2.0 


1-5 


1.2 


1.2 


1-5 


Average between two pre- 














vious measures of improve- 














ment 


-37 


-5-0 


-5-8 


-5-3 


-2.6 


-6.6 


Average between two pre- 














vious measures of cr 


•85 


1-9 


1-5 


1.2 


1.6 


1.6 



Possibly the second sampler may have been made more rapidly or 
upon a bad day, or there may have been a dislike to repeating the 
task. No sewing practice in school intervened between the two 
performances. The instruction given to the supervisor in charge of 
the class was that the children make the two samplers under con- 
ditions as nearly as possible identical. 

What is of more interest than the fact of a very small amount of 
negative improvement, is the relative difference in this negative 
improvement as shown in the five different stitches. Hemming is 
especially different in this respect from the other four stitches. The 
fifty children who made each two samplers were in this stitch much 
more constant, a fact which is brought out clearly by both sets of 
judges. The average deterioration in their samples of hemming 
was 2.56. In the running stitch the deterioration was greatest, be- 
ing 6.66. (The unit in which these measures are expressed equals 
one-tenth of a step between successive piles of the seven into 
which the 100 samples of each stitch were sorted by the twenty 
judges.) 



100 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

RELIABILITY IN RELATION TO THE CHARACTER OF 
THE JUDGES 

In the making of the scale various classes of persons acted as 
judges. Following are facts which were gathered at that time con- 
cerning relative reliability between these different judges. 

When thirty-six judgments in all had been made upon 129 or 
854 samplers there was a chance to compare the amount of agree- 
ment existing between the average of various groups of judges and 
the average judgment of the thirty-six. The groups compared were 
one of eight past or present sewing teachers; one of eight women 
who said they knew considerable about sewing, but who had never 
taught it; one of eight women who said they knew very little about 
sewing; and one group of eight men, all of whom claimed that they 
knew nothing about sewing. The remaining four persons in the 
group of thirty-six who were not included in the four groups of 
eight, were all women who had a fair amount of knowledge of 
sewing. 

Table XXV shows the correlations between each of these groups 
and the group of thirty-six, and also the correlation of half of each 
of these groups with the other half. The most interesting feature of 
this table is the indication that sewing teachers agree less with the 
group as a whole than do any of the other three groups, including 
the men. If the sewing teachers, while differing from the group of 
thirty-six, had yet shown a greater amount of agreement between 
themselves than do the other groups, we might think that they 
were the most expert judges, but since they agree among them- 
selves no better than do the other two groups of women, we hardly 
feel justified in saying that they are any better judges of sewing. 
One constant difference between their judgments as a group and 
that of the other groups, is that they place the samplers on the 
average a little lower, or nearer the zero end of the scale. That this 
is true is seen by comparing in Table XXV the average position 
assigned samplers by the various groups, the average being here 
expressed in terms of the original ten to twelve piles into which 
the samplers were sorted. 

One possible source of error in concluding from Table XXV that 
sewing teachers are less reliable judges of sewing than are other 
women competent in other respects, is the fact that six of the eight 
sewing teachers made judgments upon 854 of the samplers instead 



The Reliability of Measurements of Sewing 



lOI 



Table XXV. Coefficients of correlation, showing agreement of four groups with 
the average of thirty-six judges, and the agreement of one half of each group 
with the other half; also average position assigned samplers by each group 





Sewing 
teachers 


Women who 

know about 

sewing 


Women who 
do not know 
about sewing 


Men 


Coefficient of correlation 










between each group and 










average of thirty-six 










judges 


.911 ±.0I 


.986 ± .002 


.991 ±.003 


.978^.003 


Coefficient of correlation 










between one half of each 










group and the other half 


.958^.005 


•957=^-005 


.966 ± .004 


.78^.023 


Average position assigned 










samplers 


6.18 


5-99 


5-82 


5.87 



of 129. This was a tedious task and, we might well think, one 
which would prevent the exercise of one's best judgment. However, 
four of the group of women who knew much about sewing were also 
among the original twelve judges, three of them having judged 
1,184 samplers and one 854; whereas only one sewing teacher judged 
the full number of 1,154 samplers. Of the group of women without 
knowledge of sewing two made judgments upon 1,184 samplers; 
the others upon only. 129. The fact also that the correlation be- 
tween six and six judges upon 854 samplers is as high as .93 makes 
us feel that the comparatively low correlation between eight sewing 
teachers and the group of thirty-six individuals which they partly 
compose is not due to the fact that a larger number of them than 
any other group judged a large number of samplers. 

An odd feature of Table XXV is that the correlation between the 
group of eight men and the total group of thirty-six is as high as 
.978; whereas the correlation between one half of the men and the 
other half is as low as .78. The author thinks that the explanation 
is probably due to the fact that two of the men who happened to 
be grouped in the same half when the intercorrelation was found, 
made extremely poor judgments, little if any better than chance 
would allow. These men were students in a class in Experimental 
Psychology. Probably the task of arranging sewing samplers was 
one which did not call forth their best efforts. The other six men 
evidently made conscientious judgments which, on the whole, com- 
pare favorably with those made by any of the women. 



I02 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

RELIABILITY OF JUDGMENT IN RELATION TO THE DISTRI- 
BUTION AND TO THE KIND OF PRODUCTS JUDGED 

That a small distribution of the qualities of the product to be 
judged makes for less reliability in the judgments passed upon them 
is shown by comparing two correlations which were found in the 
course of our previous investigation. In making the scale it was 
necessary to find the reliability of the first twelve judgments made 
upon the 854 samplers. The correlation between six of these judges 
and six others was found to be .933 with a P.E. of .003. Later it 
was necessary to find the correlation between judgments of these 
same two groups of six judges each upon 100 only of the 854 sam- 
plers. This correlation is given in column r p\ p2 of Table XIX. It 
is .88. In this latter case of 100, both very good and very poor 
samplers were omitted, and this probably accounts for the correla- 
tion of .88 as compared to the one of .93 when a larger range of 
samplers was judged. 

That reliability of judgments depends upon the kind of products 
judged has been shown in previous tables. 

In column r gi g2 of Table XIX are given the correlations be- 
tween six individuals and six other individuals upon 100 samples of 
five different stitches. These correlations show that the reliability of 
judgments passed upon certain stitches is much greater than is there- 
liability of judgments upon certain other stitches. To be more specific, 
these correlations show that judges agree most concerning back- 
stitch (reliability coefficient, .95) and least concerning running (relia- 
bility coefficient, .82). For overcasting, combination stitch, and 
hemming, there seems to be about an equal amount of reliability. 

It has also been shown in Section 4 that reliability of judgments 
which are passed upon various faults is dependent greatly upon the 
particular fault judged. In the r qi qi column of Table XIV are 
given the coefficients of correlation between eight judges and eight 
others upon sixty-four samplers judged for each of the twenty-three 
faults studied. An inspection of that column gives useful informa- 
tion as to which faults people agree most about. "Stitches not 
parallel in slant with one another" seems to be most easy to iden- 
tify, as judged by the high correlation .94 between random halves 
of judges, whereas "Stitches and spaces too large," which one might 
think was equally identifiable, has a correlation of only .77 between 
random halves of the judges. 



The Reliability of Measurements of Sewing 103 

RELIABILITY IN RELATION TO THE USE OF THE SCALE 

In column r pi p2 of Table XVIII is given a correlation of .97 be- 
tween three and three judges for general merit of the sixty-four 
samplers which were judged also for faults. The correlation of .88 
of Table XIX, which was between judgments passed upon the 100 
samplers made by fifty children from one school, is a correlation 
between six and six judges. This larger number of judges in itself 
should make for greater reliability. The fact that the correlation 
here is only .88 as compared with the correlation mentioned above 
of .97 is partly due to the fact that it is concerned with samples 
which cover a smaller range of general merit, but probably it 
is due still more to the fact that the judgments in this case were made 
without the aid of the sewing scale described in Section 3, and in 
the case of the correlation for the sixty-four samplers the sewing 
scale was used. One purpose of our scale is that by its use variability 
of judgments will be lessened. The comparison between these cor- 
relations seems to show that it fulfills its mission. 

In order to further test the usefulness of the scale in reducing 
variability between judges, a new experiment was undertaken. 
Seven sewing teachers from Washington Irving High School, New 
York City, and one sewing supervisor of Teachers College were the 
subjects. One former sewing teacher from another city was in- 
cluded in the group by making two of the judgments recorded. 
These sewing teachers were asked to grade certain articles in two 
ways. Half of them first went through all on the familiar basis of 
100 per cent. The other half first made judgments by the aid of, 
and in terms of, the scores of our scale. The two halves of the judges 
then went through all the articles again, grading them by the 
method they had not already used. Not all of the sewing teachers 
graded all the articles in both ways, but for each article there were 
at the very least, four judgments made according to each method 
of judging. 

The articles judged were five of our samplers, five aprons, five 
bags, and five samples each of small pieces containing only hemming 
and overcasting, respectively. The author was somewhat doubtful 
about the feasibility of using the scale for judging one stitch only, 
but the results seem to indicate that such is possible. Since our 
aim is to compare the variability between judgments made by the 
different individuals in the two ways of judging, the average devia- 



104 ^^^^ Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 



Table XXVI. Comparison between the variabilities of sewing teachers from 
the same group in judging the same products, when using the per cent, method 
of grading, and when using the sewing scale 





Judged by Per Cent Method 


Judged by Sewing Scale 


a> 
bo 

(J 

3 

•a 

s 


"Si ■" 

C 

u 3 
CO 

a— 

_rt aj 
•O — 'S 

•s>.S 


E 



c 
.0 

.2 
'> 

CI 

1) 
cm a 

M CS 


s-g 

a) M 

.2 ^ 


"0 

b 


•1- 

a 
.0 

rt 
'% 

Q, 

2 2 

< 


73 M 

rt 

a 9 <u 


S 
2 

c 


2 
■> 
<p 
•0 

Bt 13 

S "* 

>1 


5^ 

a! 60 

Ey 

o-S 

c2 

n 

II 


b 

•1- 

c 
_o 

2 
'> 

m 

T3 
0) 

bo 
2 a 

u 

< a 


Hemming 






25.2 








28.0 




No. 7 


30 


18 




.11 


79 


7-5 




.04 


No. 13 


20 


14 




.09 


55-5 


9.0 




-OS 


No. 21 


60 


14 




.09 


99-5 


14.0 




.08 


No. 42 


85 


8 




•05 


131.0 


3 




.01 


No. 90 


75 


10 




.06 


131.0 


6.75 




.04 


Average 








.08 








.04 


Overcasting 






17.4 








19.9 




No. 20 


35 


24 




.22 


96.5 


18.12 




• 15 


No. 23 


60 


23 




.22 


131-2 


3-5 




.02 


No. 32 


SO 


15 




.14 


117-5 


6-5 




•OS 


No. 34 


85 


17 




.16 


150.5 


8-5 




.07 


No. 92 


85 


4 




•03 


147 


9-25 




.07 


Average 








.15 








.07 


Samplers 






23.1 








35-5 




No. 245 


30 


14 




.10 


67 


4-4 




.02 


No. 367 


70 


10 




.07 


131 


9-4 




-04 


No. 452 


20 


9.6 




.06 


51 


8.6 




.04 


No. 746 


80 


8 




.05 


143 


4-4 




.02 


No. 841 


60 


15-4 




.11 


104 


10.4 




.04 


Average 








.07 








•03 


Aprons 






21.5 








31.8 




No. II 


20 


12.5 




.09 


47 


11.25 




•05 


No. 12 


55 


20 




• 15 


72.5 


28.25 




.14 


No. 13 


80 


7-5 




•05 


137 


6 




-03 


No. 14 


26 


9.66 




.07 


57-5 


19-75 




.10 


No. 15 


40 


15-4 




.11 


64 


6.0 




•03 


Average 








.09 








.07 


Bags 






18.0 








36.0 




No. 16 


45 


13-75 




.12 


47 


4-75 




.02 


No. 17 


20 


10 




.09 


43 


5-66 




.02 


No. 1 8 


35 


7-5 




.06 


43 


6.40 




.01 


No. 19 


86 


7 




.06 


137 


3 




.02 


No. 20 


47K 


9 




.08 


67 


6.33 




.018 


Average 








.08 








.017 


Average 








.094 








■045 


of averages 



















The Reliability of Measurements of Sewing 105 

tion of the judgments from their median was found in each case for 
each article. Table XXVI gives these average deviations from the 
medians for each article judged, both by the use of the scale and 
by the per cent, method of grading. The scale values, before the 
judging was made, were multiplied by ten to eliminate the use of 
the decimal point. Obviously, since the scale values thus run up 
to a higher point than do the per cent, values (100 being, of course, 
the highest possible value in the latter case, as 164 is the highest 
possible value by the scale), thus making a greater range in the 
former case in which variability may occur, some account should be 
taken of this fact in comparing the amounts of average deviation 
in the two cases, for when the median is higher and the range is 
greater, other things being equal, the variability also will be greater. 
In order to eliminate this error the following procedure was adopted. 
Each group of five kinds of one article was treated separately, and 
the a of the distribution of the five articles (each article being scored 
by the median of the judgments passed upon it) rated in all five 
of these groups was found for each method of judging. Six times 
the <7 of any distribution, containing as it does 997 cases out of 
1,000, represents for all practical purposes the range of that distri- 
bution. In order, then, to equate the average deviation from the 
respective medians of the judgments made by the two methods, 
these average deviations were in the^case of each article divided 
through by the range for that kind of article, as represented by six 
times the a of the distribution. This was done for each of the two 
methods of scoring. Six times the sigma was used instead of the 
exact range because it is a measure less subject to inaccuracies 
caused by extreme cases. 

An inspection of Table XXVI shows that in the case of almost 
every separate article, and at any rate, in the case of the average 
of every kind of article, even the gross variability between judges 
is greater when the per cent, method of judging was used. When the 
gross amounts of variability are divided through as just indicated 
by 6 cr of the distribution of each kind of article in the case of each 
of the methods of judging, the difference between the variability 
when scale and per cent, method are used respectively is even more 
striking. This striking difference in the variabilities again goes to 
show that an objective standard to which all persons may refer 
does eliminate much of the personal equation of judges, which per- 
sonal equation leads them in the case of the per cent, method of 



io6 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

marking to disagree very widely among themselves. It must be 
remembered, too, that most of the judges in this case were teachers 
from the same school and, at that, from a school with a particularly 
high reputation for its sewing instruction. The per cent, standard 
among these teachers, who meet together frequently for conference, 
is surely very much more uniform than it is for sewing teachers in 
general. 

It must also be recognized that these teachers were used to the 
per cent, method of grading and vastly preferred it to the scale 
method, which method they were using for the first time and which, 
being unfamiliar, seemed very burdensome to them. This fact 
would certainly not make them especially careful in their gradings 
by the scale. Both their unfamiliarity with it and their dislike of 
a new method would be factors which would probably act to lessen 
the reliability of their judgments made by the scale at that time. In 
spite of these facts, we see from Table XXVI the great advantage 
of judging by the scale. When the average deviation of the judg- 
ments upon each article is divided through by six times the a of the 
distribution of that kind of article and the average of all these 
average deviations is found, it is .94 when the per cent, method is 
used and .456 when the scale is used. If the test had been made 
by judges familiar with the use of the scale, and more kindly dis- 
posed to using it, and by judges from different schools whose stand- 
ards in terms of per cent, would thus be less uniform than they 
were among the group we measured, the difference in their variabil- 
ity when judging by the two methods would probably be even more 
pronounced. 

It will now be worth while to study Table XXVI with the idea of 
evaluating the different amounts of relative variability in the judg- 
ments made by the two methods of grading when passed upon the 
five different kinds of articles. 

As has already been said, the author was somewhat doubtful 
about the feasibility of using the scale for judging one stitch only, 
and included samples containing only overcasting or hemming 
stitch as an experiment. Table XXVI shows, however, that the 
comparative difference between variability of judgments made by 
the two methods of scoring is about as great for hemming and over- 
casting as it is for all the articles taken together. 

That the judgments made upon the aprons when the scale was 
used were, on the whole, more variable than judgments upon any 



The Reliability of Measurements of Sewing 107 

other article, except the samples of overcasting, was probably due 
to the fact that aprons 11, 12, and 14 were unfinished. The judges 
were asked to disregard this fact and grade them upon the basis of 
the completed portions, but this direction was apparently not 
followed by all. Apron 15 is made almost entirely by machine, and 
contains very little hand work. It was included simply as an experi- 
ment, the author not believing that the scale gradings of such an 
article would yield such reliable judgments as were found. 

Probably the bags furnish the best test of what the scale is really 
intended to measure. They are completed articles made by hand, 
not by machine, and they contain most of the stitches illustrated 
in our samplers. Table XXVI shows that the variability between 
judges in grading bags by the use of the scale is .018. This is less 
than their variability in judging any of the other articles. It is 
very considerably less than the variability of judgments upon bags 
made without the use of the scale. In fact, this difference between 
the variabilities according to the two methods when bags alone are 
judged, is much greater than the difference between the variability 
according to the two methods of judging when we consider all five 
kinds of articles judged. 

Our conclusions earlier were based upon the difference between 
the variability for the two ways of judging, based upon the average 
variabilities for the five articles used in our experiment. We have 
shown that many of these articles were introduced merely to test 
the possible use of the scale for sundry purposes. The main use of 
the scale, however, is to measure sewing merit in articles similar to 
the bags, representing as they do completed useful products in 
which most of our scale stitches and no other stitches are repre- 
sented. This being the case, we may say that when the scale is 
used for such a purpose its value in reducing variability of judg- 
ments is even greater than we have so far claimed. 



SECTION VI 

A SUMMARY OF RESULTS 

The following tasks have been accomplished, or problems solved 
by this investigation: 

1. A scale has been made for measuring merit in certain elements 
of hand sewing. This scale consists of half-tone reproductions of 
fifteen sewing samplers so reproduced and arranged that three 
illustrations of each sampler represent all of the sewing upon the 
originals. The sewing consists of a hem, a seam, sewed with a 
backstitch (or stitching stitch), whose raw edges are overcast; and 
a few inches of running and of combination stitches. The range of 
general merit in the sewing upon these samplers is from that of an 
imbecile boy with very poor motor control and eye defect, to that 
of the most expert sewer the author could find among several col- 
leges of practical arts. Between these two extremes are the repro- 
ductions of thirteen intermediary samplers. All fifteen of the 
samplers have defined values at approximately equal steps. That 
this sewing scale is of value in greatly reducing the variability of 
judgments made upon articles of sewing has already been proved. 
Its further usefulness in other ways seems to be fully promised by 
the knowledge we have of the part which other scales have recently 
played in educational practice. 

2. An estimate has been found of the number of samplers, simi- 
lar to those described above, which it would be necessary to have 
made by a child in order that her real sewing ability maybe measured 
with various degrees of accuracy. If it is desired that our knowledge 
of her sewing ability have a correlation of .9 with her real sewing 
ability (that ability which is the average of all her sewing) it is 
necessary that from four to five such sewing samplers be made by 
her on different occasions, and the average of all of them be used as 
the measure of her ability. If we desire accuracy to the extent of 
95 per cent, correlation with a perfect measure, between nine and 
ten such samplers would be required to produce it. For accuracy 
represented by 97>^ per cent, of correlation with that same "real" 
ability, practically nineteen such samplers would have to be made 



Summary of Results 109 

by the child. Of course, if one were measuring a group of children, 
to find the average sewing ability of a class or school system, so 
many samplers would not be necessary. One sampler made by each 
child in a group of fifty children would furnish probably a more 
accurate measure of the class average than would four samplers 
made by one child furnish, as to her ability. 

3. Analyses have been made of the faults which may be present 
in these same elements of hand sewing, which the samplers, above 
discussed, represent. The first analysis, a very detailed one, con- 
taining mention of about 100 faults, in a mutually exclusive list, 
was made primarily for the purpose of assisting teachers of sewing 
in clarifying their own and their pupils' thoughts, as to the exact 
lines along which improvement is needed. Pedagogically, it is 
recognized that this treatment would be bad if given to the child 
in this negative form. "Faults" rather than "excellences" have 
formed the basis of this part of our research, both because in practice 
one is more often struck by the presence of the former than of the 
latter, when evaluating sewing productions, and also because many 
pairs of two faults are associated with only one excellence, which is a 
golden mean between the two. The detailed analysis is believed to 
be useful because it may help the teacher to think analytically when 
such thinking would be helpful to her in her teaching. It is not 
believed that analytical thinking such as it suggests would be help- 
ful at all times. 

The second analysis, which consists of twenty-three faults in a 
mutually exclusive list, was made partly to supplement the former 
one, it being wiser upon some occasions to use a somewhat less 
detailed scheme in thinking of the faults of sewing. It was made 
also as the basis for measuring the faults which actually do exist in 
children's sewing. 

4. The relative amounts of faults which are actually present in 
children's sewing when these are expressed in terms of our less 
detailed list of twenty-three, have been found. The two faults 
which appear in the greatest amounts are first, "Unevenness in 
size," and second, "Individual stitches crooked in combination and 
backstitch." Large amounts of the other faults appear in the follow- 
ing order: "Stitches not parallel in slant with one another," "Slant 
of stitches incorrect" appears in the same amount as "Stitches and 
spaces too large." "Line of sewing crooked or not parallel with edge 
of material" appears in the same amount as the two following: 



no The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

"Edges not trimmed," and "Knots and fastening large, badly made, 
and conspicuous." Next is "Bad arrangement of stitches on sam- 
plers." "Hem badly turned in" appears in the same amount as does 
"Threads left hanging" and "Broken and soiled and double thread 
used"; next is "Wrinkled material," which appears in the same 
amount as does the average of all the twenty- three faults; then 
"Seam or hem too large"; "Knots or fastenings insecure or absent" 
is equal in amount to "Basting at wrong distance from edge of hem 
or seam." "Stitches unsuited for purpose for which intended" is 
next, followed by equal amounts of "Soiled material," and "Edges 
of seam unevenly joined." In decreasingly small amounts appear 
"Stitches drawn too tight," "Evidence of ripping and threads of 
material pulled," "Stitches not drawn tight enough," "Seam or hem 
too small," and "Extra material caught in under sewing." 

These relative amounts of the actual existence of the faults have 
been compared with two other facts which we have determined 
concerning them. One is the amount of significance which each 
fault has as an indicator of general merit. The other is the relative 
amount of agreement which exists between individuals in esti- 
mating the amount of these various faults present in a given case. 
These two latter facts, the significance of a fault as an indicator of 
the amount of general merit present, and the relative agreement of 
judges concerning faults, were found to be similar; that is to say, 
it was found that faults which were conspicuous as being good indi- 
cators of general merit were, on the whole, faults concerning which 
there was a high degree of agreement between judges, and vice versa, 
that those faults which were poor as indicators of general merit, were 
faults concerning which judges were apt to disagree. The corre- 
spondence, however, was not found to be so great between either of 
these and the amount of a fault actually present. We were particu- 
larly interested in a comparison between the amount of a fault's 
importance as indicating general merit and the amount of its actual 
existence. Thg order of the twenty-three faults as indicators of 
general merit is as follows: "Unevenness in size"; "Stitches or 
spaces too large"; "Incorrect slant"; "Unsuited for purpose in- 
tended"; "Line crooked and not parallel with edge of material"; 
"Stitches not parallel in slant with one another"; "Individual stitches 
in backstitch and combination are crooked"; "Hem badly turned 
in"; "Bad arrangement"; "Wrinkled material"; "Threads left hang- 
ing and broken and soiled"; "Edges of seam unevenly joined"; 



Summary of Results 1 1 1 

"Stitches too tight"; "Knots and fastenings large"; "Stitches not 
tight enough"; "Evidence of ripping and threads pulled"; "Basting 
at wrong distance from edge of hem"; "Extra material caught in 
sewing"; "Soiled material"; "Seam or hem too small"; "Seam or hem 
too large"; "Knots and fastenings insecure or absent"; "Edges not 
trimmed". If this order is compared with that given above, which 
refers to the amount of faults present, the reader will see that they 
are somewhat similar, but that it is very unsafe to infer from one 
order what the other would be. The safe practice would be to learn 
both orders. In this way, one would always know that "Unevenness 
in size of stitches and spaces" is a fault present in large amounts, 
(therefore one probably overcome only with difficulty) and that it 
is also a fault, the amount of whose presence is a strong indication of 
how much general merit in sewing it accompanies. On the other 
hand, one would know that "Stitches too tight" is a fault which 
happens seldom, large amounts of it being comparatively rare, yet 
one which is rather important as an indicator of general merit; 
and so on through the list. 

In general, we may say that our results have shown that various 
traits in sewing, as indicated by our list of twenty-three faults, are 
highly correlated — more so on the whole than are various sub- 
divisions of most elementary school subjects. This indicates that, 
on the whole, ability to sew is general rather than specialized, that 
whatever outside influences make for success in one phase seem also 
to operate to a rather large extent in most of the other phases. In 
spite of this general tendency toward high correlation there are, of 
course, cases of exception in individual pupils, the diagnosis of 
whose peculiarities will be greatly aided by the use of our two 
analyses. There are also various degrees of the amount of correla- 
tion which exists between the different phases of this ability. The 
most important ones to note are those which have already been sug- 
gested in the list of indicators of general merit. The order in which 
the faults appear in the list is, of course, the order of the amount 
of correlation which each one has with general merit. These cor- 
relations vary from .94 to .19, and it is evidently unsafe to infer 
high correlation between all elements of sewing ability, even though, 
as stated above, we find such correlations to be particularly high in 
sewing. The safe practice is to know the general rule of high cor- 
relation, the individual correlations found between each trait and 



112 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

general merit, and the idiosyncrasies of the special class or individual 
pupil with whom we are to deal. 

5. Five fundamental stitches of hand sewing — hemming, over- 
casting, backstitch, running, and combination stitches — have been 
studied in the following ways (the results of the various findings 
concerning the dififerent stitches are brought together in Table 
XXVII): 

Table XXVII. Relative importance of five sewing stitches according to 
various ways of dealing with them 






M 2 

•^ a 
c° 

<U 60 

■w a 

t% in 

< o'S 



XI ii ^ 



o 2"a-- 

•" E 3 JJ 

T3 ca"^ > 



OJ C (U j_i 

uS.SE 



-SE 



.2° Si 

E C-" 
o 2 >• 
-" E c 

o a! ■" 
^ Q>, 

•OT3X1 

V c 

C cn-o 
O-o 3 

C rt m 
Om "^ 



iiE 



38E 






c J-" oj 
c o i; 
300 
ZriE 



a o 

OT) 

■" c 

rt g =" 
^ ^ C 



ESj= 

3 o.ti 

2; rt & 






Ec^ 



3 1. 



c O E 



"•5 = 

5&£ 



Em-*-* 

S aj_, M 

rt.ti <^ 3 

(-1 CO to ,- 

V rt.S.3 
I. o 

o -w'S ^ E 
_ 3 >'Xi S 

S °-^ L. 

.2 PtJ'O 3 

■g c-g'§ ^ 

O > j^ J* 2 
US rt caw 



X)3^-|S 



1" to.- 
60- *J 



JJ 60 £_. 
5 C 3 g 

c o.ti'o. 

0) O a, g 
E co" "^ <* 



Overcasting 
Running 
Combina- 
tion 
Backstitch 
Hemming 



.92 

.82 

•91 
•95 



.61 

.80 

•71 

.66 

.82 



.67 
.29 

.09 
•49 

•75 



.40 
.64 

.60 
.80 
.62 



13.6 
5- 

6.1 
2.3 

5-5 



28.7 
10.6 

12.9 

4^9 
11.6 



59^ 
21.8 

26.4 

ID 

23.8 



—5- 
—6.66 

— 5^84 
—5^29 
-2.56 



1.4 
1.6 

1-9 
I.I 
2.0 



—•25 
—.76 

—•54 
—.72 
—.81 



•79 
.96 



.87 
.81 



(a) The relative reliability of judgments has been found accord- 
ing to the stitch concerning which it is made. Backstitch is thus 
seen from the table to be the stitch concerning which judges are 
most agreed as to whether a certain sample of it is good or bad; 
running stitch is the stitch concerning which they agree least. 

{b) The relative importance of each of these stitches as indicators 
of general merit has been found. Hemming is seen to be of most 
importance in this connection and overcasting of least 

(c) The partial coefficient of correlation has been found of each 
stitch with general merit, the four other stitches having been 



Summary of Results 113 

eliminated, the effect upon the correlation of their common elements 
thus having been removed. 

{d) The reliability of one sample of a child's sewing in each of 
these stitches has been found, and the number of samples of each 
which would be necessary in order to know that there were various 
degrees of probability that her "real" ability in this kind of sewing 
was measured. These are the same kind of estimations which are 
reported above under 2 to have been made for the total sampler. 
The most interesting fact concerning the results now under dis- 
cussion is the great amount of relative difference indicated between 
some of the stitches in this respect. To arrive at a measure of each 
stitch which would be equally accurate to that which would be 
rendered as to general merit by from four to five sewing samplers, 
it would be necessary to have only 2.3 samples of backstitch; hem- 
ming, running, and combination stitch would need to be represented 
by about as many samples as would be necessary for the total 
sampler, while to arrive at a measure equally reliable concerning a 
child's ability in overcasting, 13.6 samples of it would be required. 

(e) In two successive sewing periods we found that a class of 
children, as a whole, did worse in the second period. Of course, such 
negative improvement occurring once has little significance for 
educational theory. We already know that improvement is never 
at an invariably uniform rate, but that unevenness in the practice 
curve due to chance is the rule, and that slight regression is of fre- 
quent occurrence. What is of much interest, however, in this con- 
nection is again a relative matter in connection with the different 
stitches. Table XXVII shows that three of the stitches were 
affected somewhat equally in this respect, the deterioration being 
about the same in combination, backstitch, and overcasting. In 
running stitch it is slightly greater. Hemming, on the other hand, 
shows a deterioration less than one-half that of the average of the 
other stitches. 

(f) The fault "Stitches too large" which, as we have reported, had 
been measured along with twenty-two other faults, was measured 
in detail as it applied to the five different stitches under consider- 
ation here. Just as each of the twenty-three faults earlier had been 
measured in three respects, so this one in its detailed form as apply- 
ing to the separate stitches was measured in three respects. These 
three measures, which are found in the three last columns of Table 
XXVII, give scores for (i) the amount of the fault which is present 



114 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

in each stitch, (2) the amount of indication which the fault has for 
general merit, according to the stitch in which it appears, and 
(3) the reliability of judgments concerning the fault as it appears in 
the different stitches. The fault "Stitches too large" is greatest 
when it appears in hemming and almost as great when in combina- 
tion stitch. Backstitch contains least of this fault. From the next 
to last column we find that hemming is also the stitch in which the 
fault is most serious; in the sense, that is, that "Stitches too large" 
in hemming is more of an indication of lack of general merit in toto 
than is "Stitches too large" in any other stitch. It must be empha- 
sized, however, that this does not at all imply that intrinsically lack 
of the fault when in this stitch rather than in any other enters in 
more as a component of general merit. Whether it does or does not, 
it is impossible for us to know from the results we have at hand. 
Only by treating our results according to the method of partial co- 
efficients of correlation, which we have not done in this connection, 
could we determine anything at all concerning the amount of con- 
tribution which any partial trait makes to a more generalized 
ability. When it was said above that in a certain sense one fault 
was more "serious" when present in hemming than in any other 
stitch, it was meant that it was so only because, as things were, the 
fault in hemming does have a higher correlation with general merit 
than the fault in any other stitch. What extraneous influences may 
enter to make this correlation so high, our results give no basis for 
estimation. The results which we found when partial coefficients 
of correlation were found between each stitch and general merit 
indicate that if the method had been applied to faults also, we 
would have seen that often very little of the actually obtained co- 
efficients of correlations between general merit and any fault is 
really due to this one factor alone. As things stand, however, hem- 
ming is the stitch in which this fault, when it appears, has the 
highest correlation with general merit. The fault when in overcast- 
ing, on the other hand, has only a low correlation with general merit. 
As to the reliability of judgments passed upon the fault, there is 
not a great deal of difference, according as it appears in different 
stitches, with the exception of the running stitch. Apparently 
judges are more agreed among themselves as to when "Stitches are 
too large" in this stitch, than when they are too large in any other. 



APPENDIX I 

A TEST OF TRANSFER FROM SEWING TO "NEATNESS" 
AND TO "esthetic APPRECIATION" 

Woolman, in a pamphlet entitled A Talk with Mothers on the Value 
of Sewing Teaching, says,"The German women are more apt to have 
clean, orderly homes than our American women, on account of the 
thorough drilling they have had in sewing." 

To test properly the truthfulness of this and similar claims for the 
transfer value of the teaching of sewing, it would be necessary to 
conduct a carefully planned experiment of the usual type for testing 
transfer, using a practice group and a control group, testing both as 
to neatness in housekeeping both before and after the sewing 
practice of one group, and comparing the results of improvement of 
the two groups. Such an experiment would require much time and 
would be rather difficult to handle. Some light, however, may be 
cast upon the question of transfer by finding the correlation which 
exists between the two abilities of sewing and housekeeping. If 
children who learn to sew are thereby neater in their household 
duties, it would necessarily always follow that a high correlation 
would exist between these two abilities. If, therefore, we are able 
to obtain measures of these two abilities for some group of individ- 
uals and find a low correlation between them, the truth of the 
statements concerning large amounts of positive transfer is dis- 
proved. If, on the other hand, we find a high degree of correlation 
between the two abilities, the question of transfer is left open, un- 
challenged, but also still unproved, for positive correlation between 
two abilities may be due to many other causes than that of transfer 
from one ability to the other. 

In order to obtain some evidence upon this subject, the author 
obtained from the Home Economics Division of the Iowa State Col- 
lege measurements upon "neatness" in certain fields of work for 
three different classes, one of twelve, the other two of fifteen stu- 
dents each. The measurements consisted of a rank order of ar- 
rangement of the students according to the amount of their "neat- 
ness" in the various subjects. The rankings were made by the 



1 16 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

instructors in each course, the directions to these instructors being 
that each rank the students independently, and in ignorance of 
other rankings. One class was thus ranked for "neatness" in Millin- 
ery, Applied Dress Design, and Personal Appearance. The two 
other classes were each ranked for neatness in the following: Foods, 
House, Advanced Textiles and Clothing, and Personal Appearance. 



Table XXVIII. Coefficients of correlation, obtained by the rank method, 
found between 'neatness' in various fields for three college classes 



Subjects Correlated for Neatness 


Class A 


Class B 


Class C 


Millinery and applied dress design 


.36 
± .161 






Millinery and personal appearance 


-•53 
=t .132 






Applied dress design and personal 


•03 






appearance 


=^.183 






Foods and house 




± 


53 
147 


.67 
=t .101 


Foods and advanced textiles and clothing 




± 


49 
156 


•17 
±.178 


Foods and personal appearance 




± 


32 
183 


•73 
±.086 


House and advanced textile and clothing 




± 


74 
093 


.27 
± .169 


House and personal appearance 




± 


71 
102 


•71 
±.091 


Advanced textile and clothing and per- 






80 


.72 


sonal appearance 




±.072 


±.089 



Correlations were found by the rank-order method between each 
pair of measures for each class, and are given in Table XXVIII. 
Inspection of this table shows that some positive correlation, in the 
case of two of the classes, exists between neatness in all of the four 
fields. That it is of a degree to warrant the statements quoted at 
the commencement of this chapter, seems very doubtful, even if the 
negative records of Class A are disregarded. Some common factor 
may exist between neatness in these various fields. Just what this 
element is and how it should best be trained are important educa- 
tional problems. That the most efificient way to foster it is to teach 
sewing seems surely not to be the case, for the correlations between 
subjects other than those three involving sewing ability (Applied 



Appendix 117 

Dress Design, Textiles and Clothing, and Millinery) are quite as 
high or higher than are the correlations between these three subjects 
and others. 

Another claim frequently made is that aesthetic appreciation is 
developed by learning to sew. 

Thus, after describing the training of hand and eye which comes 
from learning to sew, Margaret Swanson in Needlecraft in the School 
(19 16) says : "At twelve years of age the girl has acquired the power 
of hand and eye, needed for the relatively smaller, more finical 
seams of dolls' clothing. This possession of power implies a devel- 
opment of more or less artistic appreciation." 

The facts to be reported, which throw some light upon this claim, 
were gathered by the author in connection with another research. 
Only that part of the experiment which helps to solve the present 
problem under consideration will be reported here. 

This problem is that of measuring the transfer effect which sewing 
practice produces upon aesthetic appreciation. 

The method of correlation which was used in connection with the 
study of the transfer value of sewing to neatness was used here also, 
the argument being in this case that if there is positive transfer 
from sewing to aesthetic appreciation it should show itself by the 
existence of a positive correlation between tests of sewing ability 
and tests of aesthetic appreciation. 

The subjects of the experiment were twenty-two students from the 
senior class of the woman's department of the Carnegie Institute of 
Technology. Two measures of their sewing ability were obtained by 
using their ratings in "sewing" for the Plebe and Sophomore years. 

A test in aesthetic appreciation in color combination in dress was 
devised in the following manner: Fifteen copies of the same dress 
design were colored by hand in fifteen different ways, different 
colors and combinations of colors being used. These were mounted 
upon a gray background. Thirteen women who were considered 
experts in the subject were asked to arrange these fifteen colored 
dresses in the order of their importance, beauty and suitability of 
the color or colors to the style of gown were both to be considered. 
Nine of these experts were teachers of dress design. That the test 
is a reliable one is shown by the fact that the correlation between 
the median position assigned to each dress by half of these judges 
and the median position of each dress according to the other half of 
the thirteen judges was found tb be .93. 



1 1 8 The Measurement of Certain Elements of Hand Sewing 

The same directions concerning the arrangement of the fifteen 
pictures of colored dresses were given to each of the twenty-two stu- 
dents in this class to be tested. The position in which each student 
put each dress was compared with the median position in which 
that dress was put by the group of^ thirteen experts. Two scores 
were found for each student. The first score was the sum ^ of the 
deviations between the positions into which she put each of the 
first eight dresses from the positions into which these same dresses 
were put by the median expert judgment. The second score was 
the sum of her deviations in respect to the other seven of the total 
number of fifteen dresses. 

Having two measures of each of the abilities to be correlated 
made it possible to free this correlation from attenuation due to 
chance inaccuracies in the particular measures of the abilities which 
were used. 

Letting ^1, p^ and p represent, respectively, the two scores actually 
found for sewing ability and the real measure of that ability which 
an infinite number of scores would show, letting gi, q^ and g equal 
the same three measures of ability in aesthetic appreciation, the 
following correlations were found: 

r p\ p2=.6o 

r Qi q2=.8o 

r pi §2=— .24 

rp2 gi=-.i5 

rpq =-.27 

a t.r. — oht. r=.i36 

a t.r. — oht. r = .o'jb 

It is unfortunate that the number of students was so few. As a 
consequence, the unreliability of our correlations as shown for two 
of them by at.r — oht. r (true correlation — obtained correlation) is 
very great. No very great significance, therefore, can be attached 
to our findings, being subject, as they are, to much influence from 
extreme measures. The fact, however, that the r p q or the cor- 
relation found here to exist between sewing ability and aesthetic 
choice is — .27, is probably a very strong indication that there is 
no great amount of positive transfer from sewing to the latter abil- 
ity. As a matter of fact, the correlation being a minus one is prob- 
ably due to the very erratic aesthetic choice of one student, who has 

* Regardless of signs. 



Appendix 119 

a rather high amount of sewing abiHty. Had this student been 
eliminated from the reckoning, a correlation of about zero would 
probably have been found. 

Neither our test for transfer from sewing ability to "neatness" nor 
that for transfer from sewing ability to "aesthetic choice of color 
combination" is detailed or reliable enough to serve as a certain 
proof that there is no such transfer. They do, however, furnish 
evidence sufficient to make us say that there is a strong probability 
against any great amount of transfer from sewing to either of these 
two other abilities. 



APPENDIX II 



A SEWING SCALE 



The Sewing Scale described in the foregoing pages is shown on 
the following inserts. 

Each page shows three views of the same sewing sampler. 
One view gives the full-sized view, showing a hem, a seam, hemming, 
basting, running, backstitch, overcasting, and combination stitch. 
A second view shows the reverse side of the seam, and of the over- 
casting, basting, and backstitch. A third view shows the reverse 
side of the hem, of the hemming stitch, basting, running, and com- 
bination stitch. The numerical values of each entire sampler is 
printed beneath it. 

DIRECTIONS FOR MEASURING 

Compare the quality of the sewing to be judged with the quality 
of the samplers in the scale. Assign to the sewing you are judging 
the numerical value of that evaluated sampler which equals it in 
general merit. In case it falls between two scale samplers in merit, 
assign to it a numerical value between the values of these samplers, 
proportionate to its difference from each. 



) 



\ 






(. 




S 



1 





f^. 



// 



p" 




u 





\ 

1 







■\t.. 



i. 





(X^ 



/ 




/ 






\ 






^1 



) 



1 



sjl- 



n 



/, 



<A 




l\ 



a - 

ft 






l^ 




/, 



^^\ 






IC^ 



y 

k 

V 

I. 



1 



\o 



\ ' 



^ 




'a' 



/:■ 



\/^ 



y 



YA 



f 



4. 





^ 



•n 



::^ 







•J 



i: 







! , 



n^i 






i V 



i 




^ 



f^ 



rr"''^^^!^^^^'^ 



^»jiiiiik£«ji^;:'i;ji:iil:i 



il 









X 



/ 





""'^^ 


^^^^H 


V 


1 


/; 


1 


1^ 


I 


* 


1 


* 


I 



X 



i^:: 



y 






X 



i'2 







• |' W ' l^iul•| iiiMiWipji ^ iiiifc , 



^- 




.ftl^ -SK" 



\ 



I. ^ 



/I - 



o 



/i r 



^..-..,r- 



V / 

K 

/\ 

I; 

f' \ 






.* A 




'X 



w 





'•^'jLSijrij'-Si-iii^^iPJ 



/-- 



\ 




^f 






d 



>' 



f^ 



\^ 



-" 
y 



K 



t t 






ro 



ITi 





Il- 



y 



v^ 



y 







■^9 




rir"-^""'" 




§"^?J lO 



r 



^ 



/- 'i 
/ 

Y 

/ 

(^ 
/ 

V \ 

/ 
/ 

/ \ 

/ 



^ 

vd 



■•■♦RtacsiSSSKse JcaitrHn-'ii-rE^i^'^"^ v^Triiil 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 







014 082 508 6 « 









